The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 35.
Net neutrality advocates hail Trai verdict
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-february-9-2016-alnoor-peermohamed-net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict
<b>Facebook 'disappointed' with the ruling on differential pricing.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Alnoor Peermohamed appeared in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict-116020800974_1.html">Business Standard</a> on February 9, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has demonstrated what a forward looking and pro-<a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Net+Neutrality" target="_blank">net neutrality </a>policy looks like, experts and net neutrality advocates said after the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) turned down a proposal to allow <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Differential+Pricing" target="_blank">differential pricing </a>services to function in the country.<br /> <br /> “This ruling has happened in the face of enormous lobbying on the one side by very large <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Companies" target="_blank">companies </a>and a ragtag bunch of people on the other. In spite of that, to see the right thing has prevailed, which is in the national interest and not what was masqueraded as national interest is very gratifying. This has not often taken place in policy making in India,” says Sharad Sharma, convenor, iSPIRT, a lobby group for indigenous software product firms.<br /> <br /> Net neutrality activists across the world have lauded Trai’s decision not to allow large firms such as <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Facebook" target="_blank">Facebook </a>and Airtel to divide the Internet and offer selected services for free to consumers. The one year-long fight that began when Airtel proposed to offer internet companies the chance to offer customers their services for free, ended in <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Trai" target="_blank">Trai </a>stipulating fines of Rs 50,000 a day for companies offering differential pricing services, which is capped at Rs 50 lakh.<br /> <br /> “This has resulted now in the most expensive and stringent regulation on differential pricing that exists anywhere in the world. Activists around the world would be looking to India and will definitely be using this landmark order to fight against <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Zero+Rating" target="_blank">zero rating </a>elsewhere,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a think tank.<br /> <br /> Facebook, which was one of the biggest stakeholders in the drive to allow differential pricing services in the country, said it was disappointed with the ruling. The firm has been accused of supporting net neutrality in the US, but standing in its way in India to get permissions to provide its <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Free+Basics" target="_blank">Free Basics </a>platform in India.<br /> <br /> “Our goal with Free Basics is to bring more people online with an open, non-exclusive and free platform. While disappointed with the outcome, we’ll continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the internet and the opportunities it brings,” Facebook said in a statement.<br /> <br /> Nikhil Pahwa, founder of Medianama, who ran a campaign called Savetheinternet against Facebook’s Free Basics called this a victory to the youth of India, saying “this outcome indicates what happens when young people actually participate in a governance process”.<br /> <br /> According to Pahwa, there’s far too much cynicism about governments not doing the right thing. “We hope this is the beginning of something new: of people believing that they can make a difference, and persevering towards helping form policies that ensure equity and freedom for everyone.”<br /> <br /> He added: “There are many internet-related issues that have still to be looked at, especially internet shutdowns, censorship and the encryption policy. These impact all of us, and we should be ready to voice our point of view, and the government looks like it is listening.”<br /> <br /> India’s software sector lobby group Nasscom, which had stood against Facebook’s Free Basics platform and for net neutrality in general congratulated Trai for its ruling to disallow zero-rating and differential pricing services in the country.<br /> <br /> “Our submission highlighted the importance of net neutrality principles, non-discriminatory access and transparent business models aligned to the goal of enhancing internet penetration in the country. The Trai announcement resounds with the submission made by Nasscom and we would like to congratulate Trai for enshrining the principles of net neutrality,” R Chandrashekhar, president of Nasscom, said in a statement.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-february-9-2016-alnoor-peermohamed-net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-february-9-2016-alnoor-peermohamed-net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-02-14T11:16:45ZNews ItemIndia Sets Strict New Net Neutrality Rules
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-anjana-pasricha-february-9-2016-india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules
<b>In India, advocates of net neutrality have welcomed new rules by the telecom regulator that have blocked efforts by Facebook to offer free but limited access to the web in the country’s fast growing Internet market.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Anjana Pasricha was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.voanews.com/content/india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules/3182965.html">Voice of America</a> on February 9, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a widely awaited ruling, the Telecom Regulator Authority of India (TRAI) said on Monday that “no service provider shall charge differential pricing on the basis of application, platforms or websites or sources." It will impose penalties of $735 a day if the regulations are broken.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kiran Jonnalagadda, who was among a group of 10 that launched an impassioned campaign called <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.in" target="_blank">Save the Internet</a>, says they have won a “fabulous” victory against large corporations to ensure equal web access for millions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“We were up against the most powerful companies in the world, we had no chance of fighting Airtel last year, we had no chance of fighting Facebook. I think the only reason it worked is that we were on the side of facts, the opposition was not,” says Jonnalagadda.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Debate on Airtel</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The campaign on net neutrality snowballed into a nationwide public debate after an Indian telecom company, Airtel, launched a marketing platform last April on which it planned to offer customers access with no data charges to certain Internet services and sites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In recent weeks, the focus turned to “Free Basics”, a service being offered by Facebook on mobile phones to a handful of sites in areas such as communication, healthcare, and education.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Saying it wanted to vastly expand Internet access in poor, rural areas, Facebook had launched a massive advertising campaign in support of the platform. Only about 300 million in the country of 1.2 billion people have access to the net, many just through mobile devices.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But campaigners slammed Free Basics as “poor Internet for poor people” and said it would create a “walled garden” in which Facebook would control the content it offered users. Leading Indian technology entrepreneurs and university professors also called on the government to guard against attempts by Internet giants to turn the country into a “digital colony.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many of them have applauded the regulator’s move to strengthen net neutrality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Ban on differential pricing </b><br /> <br /> However, some are raising questions about the the complete ban on differential pricing announced by the regulator. That includes the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society research group, which says India has put in place the most stringent net neutrality regulations across the world. Its executive director, Sunil Abraham, says TRAI cited the examples of the Netherlands and Chile, but the ban on differential pricing in those countries is not as absolute as the one notified in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“We think that if proper technological safeguards and other market safeguards are put in place, it would be possible to have both — to have rapid growth in Internet access and reduced harm that emerge[s] from network neutrality violations,” says Abraham.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indeed, the last word may not have been said on net neutrality in India as big telecom operators are expected to mount legal challenges to the regulator’s ruling in the coming months.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Expressing disappointment with India’s ruling, the Cellular Operators Association of India has called the ban on differential pricing a “welfare reducing measure” that could block an avenue for “less advantaged citizens to move to increased economic growth and prosperity by harnessing the power of the Internet.”<br /> <br /> In a statement, Facebook has said “we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But after having tasted victory, the volunteers at Save the Internet, who have grown from about 10 to 100 in the last year, have already set their sights on another aspect of net neutrality besides differential pricing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The campaign is not going to retire because this is not the end of it. There is also discrimination on the basis of speed, which the regulator has not taken up yet,” says Jonnalagadda.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-anjana-pasricha-february-9-2016-india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-anjana-pasricha-february-9-2016-india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsNet NeutralityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookInternet Governance2016-02-11T01:53:19ZNews ItemA Megacorp’s Basic Instinct
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct
<b>Bolstered by academia and civil society, TRAI stands its ground against FB’s Free Basics publicity blitz.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Arindam Mukherjee was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article/a-megacorps-basic-instinct/296510">published in Outlook</a> on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hours before the January 31 deadline for telecom regulator TRAI to give its opinion on Facebook’s controversial and expensive Free Basics pitch—which seeks to give India’s poor “free” access to certain partner websites—the consensus seems to be building up against the social media giant. “If there is cannibalising of the internet through services like Free Basics, the internet will be split; it will parcel out and slice the internet. Its future is at stake,” says a senior government official on condition of anonymity.<br /><br />In a climate where the tech-savvy Modi government is seen to be close to the online trinity of Facebook, Google and Twitter, TRAI’s defiant stance in favour of net neutrality stands out. There’s a lot at stake. India’s position becomes crucial as few countries in the world have clearly defined laws on net neutrality or have taken a stand on it. For Facebook, there’s a lot more at stake. India is its second-largest user base after the US (it is banned in China), so it is leaving no stone unturned. The massive Rs 300-crore electronic and print media campaign is an indication of that.<br /><br />TRAI sources say they are ready for any adverse onslaught and they are under no pressure from the PMO. The view gaining ground in government is that FB is trying to create a walled garden where it controls what people see and surf and what they can access online. While this will be offered to consumers for free—the technical term is differential pricing—the websites part of Free Basics will have to pay for being on the platform. Outlook’s queries to FB remained unanswered at the time of going to press.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At an ‘open house’ meeting to discuss TRAI’s consultation paper on differential pricing last week, regulator Ram Sevak Sharma stood firm against the barrage of pro-Free Basics opinions that flowed from FB, telecom operators and some members of the public. TRAI’s message was clear: FB’s tactics of moulding public opinion by stealth will not be acceptable in India. In the past few weeks, there have been bitter exchanges between TRAI and FB over the latter’s responses to a consultation paper on differential pricing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TRAI’s defiant stand draws from an unprecedented show of strength by civil society against Free Basics and FB’s intentions. Says former Aadhar man Nandan Nilekani, “Free Basics is certainly against net neutrality. How can a solution be neutral, if it disproportionately benefits a particular website or business on the internet? Today, 400 million Indians are online. They came online because of the inherent value the internet offers. How can a walled garden of 100-odd websites provide the same value?”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What does Free Basics mean for PM Modi’s Digital India campaign? Being a walled garden, thousands of start-ups without adequate budgets to pay for such dedicated service will be forced to stay out of it. Similar questions are being raised about government services that are increasingly coming online. The concern is that all government traffic will have to pass through FB servers. The senior government official quoted above agrees, “In such a scenario, the government will have to approach FB to make its websites accessible on the free service which is neither desirable nor safe.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The other fear is what happens to public data if it goes through a service like Free Basics. There is fear that a lot of government and public data will be put through Free Basics once government services start coming online. If Free Basics is for the poor who are also beneficiaries of government services, FB too can access this data. Says Prabir Purkayastha, chairman, Knowledge Commons, “FB says public service will be available through Free Basics but can public service be given through a private initiative? Public data is valuable and can’t be handed over to a private company.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Few again are convinced by FB’s claim that Free Basics aims to make the internet accessible to the poor, with the many services offered through it. “The claim that the poor will get access to the internet is false,” warns Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. “Free Basics gives access to less than 100 of the one billion plus websites on the world wide web. Those in the walled garden will be treated quite differently.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What gives TRAI a shot in the arm is that, for the first time, academia has put its weight behind Free Basics opponents. In a signed statement, several IIT and IISc Bangalore professors have said that Free Basics won’t serve the purpose FB is proposing and is not good for the country. “The problem is the internet being provided (via Free Basics) is a shrunken and sanitised version of the real thing. Free Basics is not a good proposal for the long-term development of a healthy and democratic internet setup in India,” says Amitabha Bagchi, IIT Delhi professor and one of the signatories to the memo.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of course, many of the experts <i>Outlook</i> spoke to say that the government, and not FB, should be responsible for providing free internet to the people. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director, IT for Change, “The government is sitting on Rs 40,000 crore of USO funds. It can surely utilise that to provide a free basic data package to people in India. Basic government services and emergency services should essentially be free.” Nilekani is also in favour of the government providing free internet to people. “The internet is a powerful poverty alleviation tool.... Government can do a direct benefit transfer for data, a more market-neutral way of achieving the goal of getting everyone on the internet,” he told <i>Outlook</i>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Legally, though, there may be issues in stopping FB from introducing its Free Basics platform in India. Says Singh, “Technically, the Indian government may not be able to stop FB from introducing Free Basics in India as it is just a platform. What the government has to do is to stop telcos from collaborating with it for free internet because Indian telcos, not FB, mediate access to the internet.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The demand for the government and TRAI to come clean on net neutrality has reached fever pitch. Experts like Nilekani feel that net neutrality, which does not allow zero rating and differential pricing based on telcos looking at the contents of the subscriber’s data packets, should be enshrined in law through an act of Parliament, the way countries like the US have done. TRAI has also proposed two models where the internet is provided free initially and charged at a later stage and another where content providers and websites reimburse the cost of browsing directly to consumers. Both these proposals have not found favour with experts who say that these are unworkable and only the government should disburse free internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In any case, all this is a matter of detail—important, no doubt. The key question is, what happens to Free Basics if TRAI rules in favour of net neutrality and goes against FB? “This is going to be a long-drawn-out battle as FB will certainly challenge this in court,” says the government official. After spending Rs 300 crore on publicity, there is no way it will roll over and die.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaTelecomFree BasicsTRAINet NeutralityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2016-02-04T13:53:05ZNews Item#NetNeutrality, Data Protection Laws among topics at ITechLaw Conference
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/netneutrality-data-protection-laws-among-topics-at-itechlaw-conference
<b>The who’s-who of the technology law sector convened at the ITechLaw India International Conference held from January 27-29 in Bangalore.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The last three days saw panel discussions being held on a varied set of topics related to technology law. The debates were led by a number of Indian and international legal professionals from law firms, companies and policy houses.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Day 2, some of the panel discussions included Commercialization of Data, Aggregator Model – Licensing and Regulatory Issues Faced by Shared Economy Models, Digital Underworld, and Legal Challenges faced in New Media and Entertainment, among others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The speakers present at these sessions included lawyers like <span><a href="http://barandbench.com/former-mmb-legal-partner-talha-salaria-sets-own-firm-lawyers-work-says-time-right/">Talha Salaria</a></span>, Founder of Lawyers at Work; JSA Partner Sajai Singh; Trilegal Partner <span><a href="http://barandbench.com/lawyers-tend-to-be-the-last-to-adapt-to-technological-changes-trilegals-rahul-matthan/">Rahul Matthan</a></span>; MCM Law Partner Samuel Mani, apart from a host of In-House counsel from Intel, Amazon, IBM, Cognizant et al.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The highlight of Day 3 was a debate on Net Neutrality; Deepali Liberhan from Facebook, Pranesh Prakash from Centre for Internet and Society and <span><a href="http://wp.me/p6ZY6N-1so" target="_blank">Rohan George from Samvad Partners</a></span> were among the panelists.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For more info, <a class="external-link" href="http://barandbench.com/itechlaw-net-neutrality/">click here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/netneutrality-data-protection-laws-among-topics-at-itechlaw-conference'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/netneutrality-data-protection-laws-among-topics-at-itechlaw-conference</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-01-30T09:21:20ZNews Itemବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଓ ଗୋପନୀୟତାର କୋକୁଆ ଆଣିବ ଫେସବୁକର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/b2cb4db5fb2cb39b3eb30b40b19b4db15-b2ab3eb07b01-b28b3fb30b3eb2ab24b4db24b3e-b13-b17b2ab28b40b5fb24b3eb30-b15b15b41b06-b06b23b3fb2c-b2bb47b38b2cb41b15b30-b2bb4db30b3f-b2cb47b38b3fb15b4db38
<b>This opinion piece in Odia on Facebook's Free Basics App was published in Your Story. The post highlights several user security and privacy that Free Basics is violating apart from violating net neutrality. It also brings the parallel of Airtel Zero and Free Basics with the Grameenphone project by Mozilla in Bangladesh and the worldwide Wikipedia Zero projects.</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://odia.yourstory.com/read/3b6116b8ee/-">Your Story</a> on January 5, 2016.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଫେସବୁକର ନୂଆ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ (Free Basics) ଭାରତରେ ଆସିବା ଆଗରୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଭିତରେ ନିଜ ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଓ ଗୋପନୀୟତାକୁ ନେଇ କୋକୁଆ ଭୟ ଖେଳିଲାଣି । ମାଗଣା ୩୦ଟି ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶରେ ଫେସବୁକ, ଫେସବୁକର ସହପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଓ ବାକି କିଛି ୱେବସାଇଟ ମାଗଣାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇବାର ଆଳରେ ଫେସବୁକ ଏ ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶର ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଅଭାବ ସଙ୍ଗେ ଖେଳୁନାହିଁ ତ? ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ନାଆଁରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଏ କେବଳ ଫେସବୁକର ପରିଧି ଭିତରେ ବାନ୍ଧି ହୋଇଯିବେ କି? ଏମିତି ଅଗଣିତ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ମନରେ ଉଙ୍କିମାରୁଥିବା ବେଳେ ଟେଲିକମ ରେଗୁଲେଟରି ଅଥରିଟି ଅଫ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ ଏହାକୁ ଭାରତରେ ସାମୟିକ ଭାବେ ବାସନ୍ଦ କରିଛି ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_Facebook.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Facebook" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଗତ ଦୁଇ ସପ୍ତାହ ସାରା ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ । ସାରା ଦେଶରୁ ଲୋକେ ନିଆଁରେ ପତଙ୍ଗ ଝାସ ଦେଲା ଭଳି ଫେସବୁକର ନୂଆ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ “ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ’ (Free Basics) ବିରୋଧରେ ଭିନ୍ନଭିନ୍ନ ଧରଣର ମତ ଦେଇଚାଲିଛନ୍ତି । ପ୍ରଧାନମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ମୋଦିଙ୍କ ଆମେରିକା ଗସ୍ତକାଳରେ ସେ ସେଠାରେ ଜୁକରବର୍ଗଙ୍କ ସାଙ୍ଗେ ଭେଟି ଫେସବୁକର ମିଳିତ ସହଯୋଗରେ ଭାରତରେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବିତରଣ ଓ ସୂଚନା ପହଞ୍ଚାଇବା ବାବଦରେ ଆଲୋଚନା କରିଥିଲେ । ଆଉ ଫେସବୁକକୁ ଏହା ଭାରତରେ ନିଜର ଚେର ମୋଟା କରିବାକୁ ଏକ ଭଲ ବାଟ ଦେଖାଇଲା । ଫେସବୁକର ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାତା ମାର୍କ ଜୁକରବର୍ଗ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ବାବଦରେ ଘୋଷଣା କରିବାର ଦୁଇ ସପ୍ତାହ ନ ବିତୁଣୁ ଟେଲିକମ ରେଗୁଲେଟରି ଅଥରିଟି ଅଫ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ (ଟ୍ରାଇ) ପାଖରେ ସାଢ଼େ ଚାରି ଲକ୍ଷ ପାଖାପାଖି ଇମେଲ ଏହାକୁ ରୋକିବା ଲାଗି ପହଞ୍ଚି ସାରିଲାଣି । ଜନନେତା ଓ ଇନଫୋସିସର ସହ ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାତା ଙ୍କଠାରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ମିଡ଼ିଆନାମାର ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାତା , ଭେଞ୍ଚର କ୍ୟାପିଟାଲିଷ୍ଟ , ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଆକ୍ଟିଭିଷ୍ଟ , ଙ୍କ ଯାଏ ସଭିଏଁ ଏହା ପଛରେ ଫେସବୁକ ଲାଭକରୀ ମନୋଭାବ ନିହିତ ଅଛି ବୋଲି କଡ଼ା ନିନ୍ଦା କରି ଲେଖିଲେଣି । ତେବେ କ’ଣ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ? କାହିଁକି ଏତେ ବିବାଦ ଏ ସରଳ ସୁବିଧା ବିରୋଧରେ?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Freebasics.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Freebasics" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଫେସବୁକ୍ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରୁଥିବା ଊଣା ଅଧିକେ ସଭିଏଁ ଜାଣୁଥିବେ ସେ କେଡ଼େ ଅଠାକାଠି! ଫେସବୁକର ପ୍ରାୟ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ହେଲେ ଯୁବବର୍ଗ । ତେବେ କି ଯୁବା କି ବୁଢ଼ା ଫେସବୁକରେ ପ୍ରାୟ ଲୋକେ କେବଳ ମଜାମଉଜ ଲାଗି ଆସିଥାନ୍ତି । ଆଉ ଏଥିରେ ଖୁବ୍ କମ୍ ସମୟରେ ଏତେ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସଙ୍ଗେ ମିଶିବା, ଗପିବା ଓ ଏତେ ଅଧିକ ମଉଜ ପାଇ ଅନେକେ ଫେସବୁକ ପ୍ରେମରେ ପଡ଼ିଯାଆନ୍ତି । ସରଳ ଭାଷାରେ କହିଲେ ଫେସବୁକ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଏକ ହାଟ ବଜାର । ଲୋକେ ସେଠି କିଛି ସମୟ କାଟିବା ପାଇଁ, ଚିହ୍ନା-ଅଚିହ୍ନା ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସହ ମିଶିବା ପାଇଁ, ଆଳାପ-ଆଲୋଚନା ପାଇଁ ଏକାଠି ହୁଅନ୍ତି । ଅଧିକାଂଶ ଆଲୋଚନା କେବଳ ମଉଜ ପାଇଁ ହେଲାବେଳେ କିଛି ଉପଯୋଗୀ ଆଲୋଚନା ମଧ୍ୟ ହୋଇଥାଏ । ଫେସବୁକ ଏକ ବିଶାଳ ଲାଭକରୀ କମ୍ପାନୀ । ଏହାର ଆଉ ଏକ ସହ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ହେଲା ହ୍ୱାଟସ୍ଅପ୍ । ଏହା ଅନଲାଇନ ଚାଟିଂ ପାଇଁ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରାଯାଏ । ଫଟୋ ଭିଡ଼ିଓରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ସାଧାରଣ ଚାଟିଂ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଏହା ଖୁବ୍ ଜଣା ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ନିକଟରେ ଫେସବୁକ Internet.org ନାମକ ଏକ ସହ-ସଙ୍ଗଠନ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରିଛି । ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ହେଲା ଏ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଡଟ ଅର୍ଗ ଅଧୀନରେ ଏକ ଯୋଜନା । ତେବେ ଫେସବୁକ ଓ ଫେସବୁକର ସହ-ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ସବୁକୁ ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶମାନଙ୍କରେ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକପ୍ରିୟ କରିବା ଲାଗି ସେସବୁକୁ ବିନାମୂଲ୍ୟରେ ପହଞ୍ଚାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ । ଭାରତ ସମେତ ଜଗତର ୩୦ଟି ଦେଶରେ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଜରିଆରେ ମାଗଣା ସୀମିତ ଫେସବୁକ ସୁବିଧା ଦେବା ଏହାର ଉଦ୍ଦେଶ୍ୟ । ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଜରିଆରେ ଆଉ କିଛି ମାଗଣା ୱେବସାଇଟ ମଧ୍ୟ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହେବ । ତେବେ ଏଠାରେ ଅନେକ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ମନରେ ଉଙ୍କିମାରେ । ଏ ମାଗଣା ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଲୋଡ଼ା କି ନା ତା’ର ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତ କିଏ ନେବ - ଫେସବୁକ ନା ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ? ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଅଧୁନା କିଛି ଦେଶରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହୋଇଥିବାବେଳେ ଫିଲିପାଇନ୍ସରେ ରହୁଥିବା ଜଣେ ଭାରତୀୟ ଜିତେଶ ଗୋସ୍ୱାମୀ ନିକଟରେ ନିଜେ ନିଜ ମୋବାଇଲରେ ସେଠାର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଇନଷ୍ଟଲ କରି ଯାହା ମତ ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି ତା’ ଭାରି ଚିନ୍ତାର ବିଷୟ । ସାଧାରଣ ଫେସବୁକର ଅଧାରୁ ଅଧିକ ସୁବିଧା ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସରେ ନାହିଁ । ଏଥିରେ ଫେସବୁକ ବାହାରେ ଥିବା ଭିଡ଼ିଓ ମାଗଣାରେ ଦେଖିହେବନି କି ଖବର ଆଦି ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ପଢ଼ିହେବନି । ପୁଣି ମାଗଣାରେ ମିଳିବାକୁ ଥିବା ବାକି ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁ ବାଛିବାରେ ଫେସବୁକର ଏକଚାଟିଆ ଅଧିକାର ରହିବ । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଏ କ’ଣ ଚାହାନ୍ତି ନ ଚାହାନ୍ତି ତାହା ଫେସବୁକ ନିର୍ଣ୍ଣୟ କରିବ ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_FB.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="FB" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଆଉ ‘ଗରିବ ମାଇପ ସବୁରି ଶାଳୀ’ ନ୍ୟାୟରେ ଗରିବଙ୍କୁ ମାଗଣା ତିଅଣର ସୁଆଦ ଚଖାଇ ଫେସବୁକ ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଯୋଗାଇବା ଆଳରେ କେବଳ ଫେସବୁକର ପରିଧି ଭିତରେ ବାନ୍ଧି ରଖିବ । ଫେସବୁକ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ, Mozilla ଭଳି ଖୋଲା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ବ୍ୟବହାର କରେନାହିଁ କି ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଉଦ୍ୟମରେ ତିଆରି ନୁହେଁ । ଏହା ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭାବେ ଏକ ଲାଭକାରୀ କମ୍ପାନୀ । ତେଣୁ ଫେସବୁକର ସବୁ କାମ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ନୁହେଁ, ବରଂ ନିଜ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ହାସଲ ପାଇଁ । ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶର ଲୋକଙ୍କ ମନ ଜିଣିବା ପାଇଁ ଓ ନିଜର ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ସଂଖ୍ୟା ବଢ଼ାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଏହା ଫେସବୁକର ଏକ ମସୁଧା ବୋଲି ଅନେକ ଚିନ୍ତାଶୀଳ ଲୋକେ ମତ ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି । ଫେସବୁକର ଏହି ଏକଚାଟିଆ କାମ ନେଟ ନିଉଟ୍ରାଲିଟି ବା ନେଟ ସମାନତାର ପକ୍ଷପାତୀ । ପକ୍ଷପାତ ନ କରି ସବୁ ୱେବସାଇଟକୁ ସମାନ ଭାବେ ଗଣିବା ନେଟ ସମାନତା ନାମରେ ଜଣା ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସରେ ଥିବା ନାନାଦି ଭୁଲ ବିଷୟକୁ ଭଲ ଭାବେ ତନଖି କରିବା ପାଇଁ ନିକଟରେ ଟେଲିକମ ରେଗୁଲେଟରି ଅଥରିଟି ଅଫ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ (ଟ୍ରାଇ) ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସକୁ କିଛିକାଳ ପାଇଁ ବାସନ୍ଦ କରିଛି । ଚତୁର ଫେସବୁକ କେବେ ଚାଷୀମାନଙ୍କୁ ପାଣିପାଗ ଜାଣିବାରେ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କରିବ ତ କେବେ ଅଭାବୀ ଭାରତୀୟଙ୍କୁ ପରସ୍ପର ସହ ଯୋଡ଼ିବାରେ ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କରିବ ବୋଲି ଦେଶସାରା ସହର ବଜାର ସବୁଠି ଜୋରଦାର ପ୍ରଚାର ଚଳାଇଥିଲା । ସବୁ ଖବରକାଗଜରେ ପୂରା ଫରଦ ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ ଆଉ ସବୁ ବସ୍ ରହିବା ସ୍ଥାନରେ ବଡ଼ବଡ଼ ହୋର୍ଡିଂ । ଆଉ ଏଥିରେ ସଭିଙ୍କୁ ଅନୁରୋଧ ଥିଲା ଏକ ନମ୍ବରକୁ ମିସକଲ ଦେଇ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସକୁ ସମର୍ଥନ କରିବା ପାଇଁ । ଏ ପ୍ରଚାର ପ୍ରସାରରେ ୧୦୦ କୋଟିରୁ ଅଧିକ ବୋଧେ ଖର୍ଚ୍ଚ ହୋଇଥିବ । କେଉଁଠୁ ଆଦାୟ ହେବ ଏ ପଇସା ?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସର ମାଗଣା ଫେସବୁକ ଓ ବାକି ୱେବସାଇଟକୁ ସୁବିଧା ଦେବାର ଏ ଆଳ ବିରୋଧରେ ଝଡ଼ ଉଠିଛି । ଫେସବୁକର ମିସକଲ୍ ଅଭିଯାନର କଡ଼ା ଜବାବ ଦେବା ପାଇଁ <a href="http://savetheinternet.in/">http://savetheinternet.in</a> ଓ <a href="http://fsmi.in/">http://fsmi.in</a> ନାମକ ଦୁଇଟି ୱେବସାଇଟ ପକ୍ଷରୁ ଜନସାଧାରଣଙ୍କୁ ସଚେତନ କରାଯାଇ ଟ୍ରାଇ ପାଖକୁ ଇମେଲ ପଠାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଅନୁରୋଧ କରାଯାଇଥିଲା। ଫେସବୁକର କୋଟିକୋଟି ଟଙ୍କା ଖର୍ଚ୍ଚର ମିସକଲ ଅଭିଯାନରୁ ୧୦ଲକ୍ଷ ସମର୍ଥନ ମିଳିଥିବାବେଳେ ବିନା ପଇସାରେ ସାଢ଼େ ଚାରିଲକ୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକ ଇମେଲ ଜରିଆରେ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସକୁ ବିରୋଧ କରି ଟ୍ରାଇକୁ ଇମେଲ କରିଛନ୍ତି । ତେବେ ଫେସବୁକର ଏହି ସମର୍ଥନ ସଂଗ୍ରହକୁ ଟ୍ରାଇର ସଭାପତି ଆରଏସ୍ ଶର୍ମା ଘୋର ନିନ୍ଦା କରି କହିଛନ୍ତି, ଏଯାବତ୍ ଫେସବୁକ ଯେଉଁ ୧୪ ଲକ୍ଷ ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ପ୍ରଭାବିତ କରି ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ମିସକଲ୍ ଜରିଆରେ ସମର୍ଥନ ଆଣିଛି ତା’ ମୂଲ୍ୟହୀନ । ୧୦୦ କୋଟି ଟଙ୍କାର କି ଅପଚୟ! ସେତିକି ପଇସାରେ ଶହେ ହଜାର ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ମାଗଣାରେ କିଛି ଉପଯୋଗୀ ସାଇଟ ଦେଖିବା ସୁଯୋଗ ଦେଇଥିଲେ ଆହୁରି ଭଲ ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତା ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସରେ ଲୁଚି ରହିଥିବା ସବୁଠୁ ବଡ଼ ବିପଦଟି ହେଲା ଫେସବୁକର ତଥ୍ୟ ସଂଗ୍ରହ କାରସାଦି । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଏ କି କି ସାଇଟ ଦେଖିଲେ, କାହା ସଙ୍ଗେ ଗପିଲେ ସେସବୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଅଗୋଚରରେ ଟିକିନିଖି କରି ହିସାବ ରଖିଥାଏ । ସଳଖେ କହିଲେ ଫେସବୁକରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ବାପୁଡ଼ାର ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିଗତ ବୋଲି କିଛି ରହିବ ନାହିଁ । ଫେସବୁକ ଆରମ୍ଭରୁ ଶବ୍ଦସମ୍ଭାରରେ ଭରା ଏକ ଲମ୍ବା ବିବରଣୀରେ ତଥ୍ୟ ସଂଗ୍ରହରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ କୌଣସି ଅଭିଯୋଗ ନାହିଁ ବୋଲି ଖୁବ୍ ଚତୁର ଭାବେ ତାଙ୍କଠୁ ଅନୁମତି ନେଇଯାଏ । ଅନଭିଜ୍ଞ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଟିର ପାଠଘର ଯାହା ସେଥିରେ ସେ ଏ ଫିକର ବୁଝିବ ବା କିପରି? ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଓକିଲ ଇବେନ ମଗଲେନ ଓ ମିସି ଚୌଧୁରୀ ଏକ ଲେଖାରେ ଦୁହେଁ ତନ୍ନ ତନ୍ନ କରି ବିଶ୍ଳେଷଣ କରିଛନ୍ତି ଏ କଥା । ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ଉଠେ ଯେ ଫେସବୁକ ଧନୀ ଦେଶରେ ଏଭଳି ବେପରୁଆ ଅପସାହସ କରିବ କି ?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଏହିଭଳି ଆଉ ଏକ କୁଟିଳ ବିଷୟ ଥିଲା ଏଆରଟେଲ ଜିରୋ । ଏଆରଟେଲ ଜିରୋ ଆଉ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଭିତରେ ବଡ଼ ସମାନତା ହେଉଛି ଉଭୟ କମ୍ପାନୀ କିଛି ୱେବସାଇଟଙ୍କଠାରୁ ବିପୁଳ ପରିମାଣରେ ପଇସା ନେଇ ସେ ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁକୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ମାଗଣା ଯୋଗାଇଥାନ୍ତି । ଏଥିରେ ସେବା ଯୋଗାଣକାରୀ ଓ ମାଗଣାରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଖେ ପହଞ୍ଚୁଥିବା ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁଙ୍କ ସିଧାସଳଖ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ନିହିତ ଥାଏ । ପାଠକଙ୍କୁ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବିତରଣ କରିବାର ତୁଚ୍ଛା ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ ତଳେ ଯେ ଏତେ ଫନ୍ଦି ରହିଛି ତାହା ପାଠକ ବାପୁଡ଼ା ବା ଜାଣିବ କେମନ୍ତେ ? ଆଉ ଧନୀ ଦେଶରେ ଏଭଳି ଫିକର ସହଜେ ଧରାପଡ଼ିବ ବୋଲି ଫେସବୁକ ଭଳି କମ୍ପାନୀ ୩୦ଟି ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶକୁ ଥୋପ କରିଛି ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ତେବେ ମାଗଣାରେ କିଛି ୱେବସାଇଟ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇବା କିଛି ନୂଆ ନୁହେଁ । ଅତୀତରେ ବାଂଲାଦେଶରେ Mozilla (ଫାୟାରଫକ୍ସ ଭଳି ନାନାଦି ଖୋଲା ଓଫ୍ଟଓଏର ପରିଚାଳନା କରୁଥିବା ସଙ୍ଗଠନ) <a href="http://m.grameenphone.com/bn/node/2757">ଗ୍ରାମୀଣଫୋନ</a> ନାମକ ଯୋଜନା ଜରିଆରେ ୫ ଲକ୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ଦିନକୁ ୨୦ ଏମ୍ବିର ଡାଟା ଦେବା ସାରା ଜଗତରେ ଆଲୋଚନା ବିଷୟ ହୋଇଥିଲା । Mozilla ଓ ମୋବାଇଲ ସେବା ଯୋଗାଣକାରୀ ଟେଲିନର ଏଥିପାଇଁ ପ୍ରଶଂସାର ପାତ୍ର ହୋଇଥିଲେ । ଅନେକ ଦେଶରେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକେ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ବିଷୟରେ ଜାଣିବାକୁ ପାଉନଥିବାରୁ ଏସ୍ଏମ୍ଏସ୍ ଓ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଯୋଗେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ସମ୍ପାଦିତ ଅନ୍ଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ <a href="http://or.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CS">ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ</a>, <a href="https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero">ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଜିରୋ</a> ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଜରିଆରେ ମାଗଣାରେ ଯୋଗାଇଦିଆଯାଉଛି । ଭାରତରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ପରୀକ୍ଷାମୂଳକ ଭାବେ ଏହି ସୁବିଧା କେତେକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ଦିଆଯାଇଛି । ତେବେ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବିତରଣ ପାଇଁ ଏହିଭଳି ଉଦ୍ୟମ ସବୁରି ଆଦର ପାଆନ୍ତି । କିନ୍ତୁ ନିଜ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ହାସଲ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଜଗତର ହିତ ନାମରେ ଗରିବଙ୍କ ଗରିବୀକୁ ଥୋପ କରି ଫେସବୁକ୍ର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ କେବଳ ନିନ୍ଦା ପାଇଛି ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ନିକଟରେ ଭର୍ଜରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/4/10712026/facebook-android-research-trust">ଏକ ଲେଖା</a>ରେ ଫେସବୁକ କାଳିମାଭରା ଆଉ ଏକ କଥା ନଜରକୁ ଆସିଛି । ଫେସବୁକ ଅତୀତରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ନିଉଜ ଫିଡ଼ରେ ଅଲଗା ଅଲଗା ଅନୁଭୂତିର ନିଉଜ ଫିଡ଼ ଛାଡ଼ିଥାଏ । ଅର୍ଥାତ ଜଣଙ୍କ ନିଉଜ ଫିଡ଼ରେ କେବଳ ତାଙ୍କ ସାଙ୍ଗମାନଙ୍କ ଦୁଃଖଭରା ପୋଷ୍ଟସବୁ ଲଗାତର ଆସୁଥିବ । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ମୁଡ଼ ଜାଣିବା ଗବେଷଣା ନାଁରେ ଏ କୁଟିଳ ଚିନ୍ତା ଯେ କେତେ ଘାତକ ତାହା ସହଜେ ଅନୁମେୟ । ଫେସବୁକର ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଏମିତି ନୀତି ଅନେକଙ୍କୁ ଅଜଣା ଓ ଏସବୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଗୋପନୀୟତା, ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିଗତ ତଥ୍ୟ ଓ ନିରାପତ୍ତାକୁ ପାଦରେ ଦଳି ଦେଲାଭଳି । <strong>ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସମର୍ଥନ ପାଇବାକୁ ହେଲେ କିଛି ପରିମାଣରେ ସଚ୍ଚା ହେବାକୁ ଯେ ପଡ଼ିବ ଏ କଥାଟି ଫେସବୁକ ଏବେଠୁ ହେଜିଲେ ଆଗକୁ ମଙ୍ଗଳ ହେବ ।</strong></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/b2cb4db5fb2cb39b3eb30b40b19b4db15-b2ab3eb07b01-b28b3fb30b3eb2ab24b4db24b3e-b13-b17b2ab28b40b5fb24b3eb30-b15b15b41b06-b06b23b3fb2c-b2bb47b38b2cb41b15b30-b2bb4db30b3f-b2cb47b38b3fb15b4db38'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/b2cb4db5fb2cb39b3eb30b40b19b4db15-b2ab3eb07b01-b28b3fb30b3eb2ab24b4db24b3e-b13-b17b2ab28b40b5fb24b3eb30-b15b15b41b06-b06b23b3fb2c-b2bb47b38b2cb41b15b30-b2bb4db30b3f-b2cb47b38b3fb15b4db38</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaFree BasicsOdia WikipediaNet NeutralityAccess to Knowledge2016-01-28T07:24:19ZBlog EntryWill India win net neutrality battle?
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/governance-now-pratap-vikram-singh-and-taru-bhatia-january-6-2015-will-india-win-net-neutrality-battle
<b>There is more than what meets the eye in Facebook’s ‘noble mission’ of providing internet for all.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Pratap Vikram Singh and Taru Bhatia was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.governancenow.com/news/regular-story/will-india-win-net-neutrality-battle">published by Governance Now</a> on January 5, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India is gearing up for an era of startups and entrepreneurship and the man pushing it as one of his biggest development and self reliance agenda is none other than prime minister Narendra Modi, who launched the ‘Startup India, Standup India’ campaign this year. Few technology giants, led by the likes of Facebook and some telecom service providers, however, have thrown a technology spanner. It is important to note that a significant number of the startups in India are internet-based – next only to the US and China in having maximum number of tech startups, according to industry body NASSCOM.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For these to flourish and for India to have next Facebook or Google it is important to have an open and neutral internet, believe digital rights experts. A network which doesn’t discriminate between the data packets (smallest unit of information sent in binary format over a network) and provides level playing field for all. “It is critical for the Startup India campaign. If we let the principles of net neutrality be compromised, then it makes it very difficult for entrepreneurs and startups to compete against established players, who can close off the market for upstarts by schemes like differentiated pricing and zero rating (toll free access to websites or apps),” said Vishal Misra, associate professor, department of computer science, Columbia University.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">A prerequisite for startups</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A few months from now, country’s telecom regulator, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), is going to decide whether internet would remain neutral and whether it will continue to foster innovation. A major threat to net neutrality, according to civil society and digital rights experts, comes from zero rating – toll free access to a few selected websites or apps, a strategy adopted by internet service providers or internet platforms to hook users to those select few sites. For telecom and internet service providers zero rating is a new stream of revenue, a way to secure optimal return on investment from their existing subscriber base – without requiring additional investment. The ISPs are arguing that they should be given more flexibility in managing their network – in a way they should be allowed to assume the role of gatekeeper of the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For ISPs, net neutrality is an obsolete and utopian idea. Facebook, which has grown into a mammoth internet platform since its inception in 2004, has recently joined this bandwagon. Under its Free Basics initiative (erstwhile internet.org), the internet giant provides toll free access to a set of websites (including Facebook obviously!) handpicked by itself to the users. In India so far it has partnered with Reliance Communications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook by far is the most audacious and aggressive proponent of ‘zero rating’ scheme. From lobbying the prime minister to giving back-to-back ads in television channels and two-page ads in national dailies to circulating a vaguely written letter in support of Free Basics on its social media site, Facebook is pitching for ‘digital equality’ by giving access to 'basic internet’ or say a slice of the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Cautioning against zero rating, Prabir Purkayastha, chairperson, Society for Knowledge Commons, said the way zero-rating is being discussed, it seems Indians are only the consumers of internet, which is not true. “Indians are also the innovators on internet,” said Purkayastha. “Internet has given the innovators the right to connect to the users without having a huge amount of money. This is the character that will be destroyed if zero-rating will be implemented,” he says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That’s true. Be it US-based Facebook or Google or Indian Flipkart or PayTm or SnapDeal, had it not been for open and neutral internet they wouldn’t have become what are today.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Raman Jit Singh Chima, global public policy director, Access Now, a New York-based firm working for digital rights, said the idea is to prevent a telco or an internet platform from assuming a role of a gatekeeper and control access. Misra, too, has written extensively on the counter-productiveness of zero rating: stifling of innovation and service providers loosing incentive to improve service and keep prices low. Both Misra and Chima testified their views on net neutrality to the standing committee on IT in August after the department of telecommunications submitted an expert committee report on the neutrality issue.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Whither public consultation</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To formulate a regulation on how internet will shape up, the TRAI has come out with two consultation papers concerning net neutrality in the last nine months. The first consultation paper on ‘regulatory framework for over the top players (OTTs)’, which came in March, was written in favour of telecom and internet service providers. “It was embarrassing,” said Purkayastha. Over 1.2 million people wrote to the regulator. This was result of the savetheinternet.in campaign ran by free internet activists and lawyers, who were later joined by All India Bakchod (AIB) whose video on net neutrality went viral on YouTube (the video has received three million views in last eight months). This was unprecedented in the history of TRAI consultations. However, the fate of those responses is still unclear.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In December the regulator brought another paper. This time it was titled ‘regulation on differential pricing’. Contrary to the initial paper, this paper is far more objective and reasonable, said Nikhil Pahwa, founder, MediaNama portal and a key volunteer behind savetheinternet.in campaign. The regulator has sought comments on its second paper by December 30 and counter-comments by January 7. Till the time a final call is taken, the telecom regulator has instructed Reliance Communications, Facebook’s India telecom partner, to put Free Basics on hold.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The savetheinternet.in campaign has formulated the responses to the new consultation paper and has made it available for everyone favouring net neutrality to send it to the TRAI. The AIB team has released another video titled ‘Save the Internet - 2 – Judgement Day’, which has been viewed close to one million times in just four months.<br /><br />The neutrality debate started in India in December 2014 when Airtel, country’s largest telco, announced – although it later backtracked – that the company would charge consumers more for using VOIP services, on top of the data charges. Later, it went on to launch Airtel Zero, wherein it struck deal with online services providers for user access at zero rate. Facebook had already introduced internet.org by then. While it was initially led by civil society, the debate was later joined by politicians – Naveen Patnaik, M Chandrashekhar, Jay Panda, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal – who strongly came out in support of net neutrality. <br /><br />Facebook has termed its zero rating platform as a philanthropic activity intended to connect billions of unconnected population so that they can access education, health and employment related information. It has urged users to sign a petition, cautioning them against "a small, vocal group of critics" lobbying to prevent 1 billion people from accessing 'affordable internet'. Under Free Basics, Facebook claims, it doesn't charge app developers and includes them if they comply to its 'objective tech specs'.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Free Basics: A camouflage?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Critics, however, call it a walled garden. In providing free access to close to a hundred websites it continues to play the role of a gatekeeper. It is not the poor who decide what to access but Facebook! While it says that it is not making money out of Free Basics as it doesn't display ads in the Free Basics version of Facebook, it keeps the option of monetisation open in the future.<br /><br />“It [Free Basics] has been camouflaged as charity," said a senior TRAI official, in an off the record conversation. While speaking to the Guardian on Facebook’s zero rating in December, Tim Berners Lee, founder of world wide web (www), said, “In the particular case of somebody who's offering... something which is branded internet, it's not internet, then you just say no. No it isn't free, no it isn't in the public domain, there are other ways of reducing the price of internet connectivity and giving something... [only] giving people data connectivity to part of the network deliberately, I think is a step backwards.”<br /><br />Speaking in favour of zero rating, Payal Malik, associate professor, economics, Delhi University, said that it is wrong to assume that all consumers will get hooked to zero rated sites. “In a way you are saying that all humans have same preferences and likes and dislikes, which is very unlikely,” said Malik. <br /><br />Experts representing telecom industry argue that the net neutrality regulation should be geography specific and the telecom players should be given more flexibility in dealing with the network. Mahesh Uppal, a senior telecom consultant and director, ComFirst India, while speaking at a round table discussion in Delhi, said that a majority of population in the West including countries opting for strict net neutrality – including Netherlands, Slovenia and the US – are already connected. "The data connectivity is primarily through fixed lines - copper, co-ax cable or optical fibre wired — wherein it is easier to add capacity to meet traffic growth. However this is difficult to do so for wireless networks," said Uppal. In developing countries, including India, mobile telephony and internet majorly runs on wireless. Hence, he argued, telecom and internet service providers should be given flexibility to zero rate. For Uppal, if zero rating or sponsored content is implemented properly “it can be one of the ways to scale up internet access” to the unconnected regions.<br /><br />Neutrality proponents, however, differ. “It is basic economic theory, and zero rated sites get a price advantage. There are studies that show customers stay within the world of zero rated sites and never venture outside or are aware of the full internet,” professor Misra said.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Zero or equal rating?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So is there a middle ground? Are there ways to increase access without tampering with open and neutral character of the internet? Experts believe there are. Some of the solutions are not completely black and white, but in between. While there is a fierce opposition to zero rating, it might work, according to Sunil Abraham, executive director, centre for internet and society (CIS), if provided with an amount of equal rating (giving free data pack to users so that they can access any site or app they want). <br /><br />Mozilla Foundation advocates equal rating. The foundation has sought to create such an alternative in Bangladesh and countries in Africa within the Firefox OS ecosystem. The foundation has tied up with telecom operator Grameenphone in Bangladesh to provide 20 Mb data per day for free to users, in exchange for viewing an advertisement. The model could be easily replicated in India, said Pahwa of MediaNama.<br /><br />For African countries, the foundation has partnered with Orange. Both allow Africans to purchase $40 Firefox OS smartphones that come packaged with free three to six months of voice calling, text, and up to 500 Mb of monthly data. Purkayastha of Knowledge Commons said that zero-rating plan by telecom operators only makes sense when government services are provided for free through it. “That is the form of zero-rating I would support.”<br /><br />There are a few platforms which are reimbursing data in megabytes to users accessing partnering apps. The user can then use the free data pack to access any other site or app. Some of them include: mCent, Gigato and DataMi. mCent, owned by Boston-based firm Jana, is a pioneer in this area. It is being used by 30 million users cross 98 countries. In India, according to Jana, one out of every 10 internet users has subscribed to mCent. <br /><br />Yes, it does violate neutrality as it puts those app providers not having enough money at a disadvantageous position vis-à-vis to those having deep pocket to reimburse data to users. “I think it’s a grey area,” said professor Misra. On the surface it seems to be just like Free Basics, however, Gigato (or mCent) is making no pretense that what they are doing is philanthropy of increasing access, said professor Misra, adding that it is still acceptable as user will have the data to venture out of the walled garden. The senior TRAI official too finds it acceptable. “In my opinion, Facebook should become like Gigato,” he said. <br /><br />If the regulator is going to protect consumers’ right and also not stifle startups and entrepreneurism, it will have to ensure some broad, core principles of the internet. It will have to prevent both the ISPs and the internet platforms from becoming gatekeepers. It must not allow any throttling, blocking, fast and slow lanes, discrimination based on price or quality of service and distortion of level playing field. How and whether TRAI is going to do these would be clear in a few months.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/governance-now-pratap-vikram-singh-and-taru-bhatia-january-6-2015-will-india-win-net-neutrality-battle'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/governance-now-pratap-vikram-singh-and-taru-bhatia-january-6-2015-will-india-win-net-neutrality-battle</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionTRAINet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-01-11T02:28:44ZNews ItemNasscom wants board to protect Net neutrality, regulate pricing
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-january-7-2016-shadma-shaikh-nasscom-wants-board-to-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing
<b>The debate against differential pricing of data services at the cost of net neutrality doesn’t seem to be getting over yet. While internet activists have gone out on streets in Bengaluru and Hyderabad to protest in favour of net neutrality, industry experts believe that differential pricing, when regulated could be tailored for public interest.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Shadma Shaikh was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.asianage.com/technomics/nasscom-wants-board-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing-454">published in Asian Age</a> on January 7, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the current situation of low internet and broadband penetration along with lower levels of digital literacy and limited local language support in the country, IT industry body Nasscom said that protection of net neutrality is essential to fight these monumental challenges that require continuous innovation, both in technology solutions and business models.<br /><br />“We strongly oppose any model where TSPs or their partners have a say or discretion in choosing content that is made available at favourable rates, speed,” Nasscom President R. Chandrashekhar said in a statement.<br /><br />However, Nasscom also suggested a suitable oversight mechanism in the form of “an independent not-for-profit entity with an independent board to manage proposed differential pricing programs that are deemed to be in the public interest and are philanthropic in nature.”<br /><br />In view of regulator Trai’s proposal to question the fairness of zero-rating—a practice of not counting certain traffic towards a subscriber's regular Internet usage, Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society said, all forms of zero-rating result in some form of discrimination, but not all zero-rating is harmful, nor does all zero-rating need to be prohibited.<br /><br />Prakash says that Trai’s paper has been inappropriately reduced to a referendum, by both parties—supporters of differential pricing programme as well as internet activists fighting zero-rating. Content-agnostic zero-rating models are not harmful, he says, adding “some traffic, such as government or public interest sites could be made free.”<br /><br />Facebook’s Free Basics app that aims to provide ‘free Internet access’ to users who cannot afford data packs, has run into trouble for being against net neutrality principle. Trai, while evaluating the zero-rating proposal has asked Reliance Communications, the official telecom partner for Free Basics to put the service on hold.<br /><br />After drawing flak from critics and citizens over its Free Basics program and its extensive advertisement in the media and on Facebook itself to influence the decision of Trai in favour of zero-rating program, Zuckerberg reached out to Indian readers through an opinion piece he published in an Indian daily newspaper.<br /><br />Facebook’s justification for Free Basics lies in comparing internet as a service similar to education and healthcare. Free schools, free libraries and public hospitals may not provide the best of services, but their existence is essential to cater to a large set of audience who cannot afford expensive healthcare or education. In the same way, says Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, everyone deserves access to free basic internet service.<br /><br />Calling Facebook’s Free Basics programme as an illusion, Nikhil Pahwa, founder MediaNama and volunteer at savetheinternet.in said “Facebook’s Free Basics is not free internet.” The choice to determine what data or content to browse should be left to the internet users, he says.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-january-7-2016-shadma-shaikh-nasscom-wants-board-to-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-january-7-2016-shadma-shaikh-nasscom-wants-board-to-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-01-31T09:25:09ZNews ItemFree Basics: Negating net parity
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-herald-january-3-2016-sunil-abraham-free-basics-negating-net-parity
<b>Researchers funded by Facebook were apparently told by 92 per cent of Indians they surveyed from large cities, with Internet connection and college degree, that the Internet “is a human right and that Free Basics can help bring Internet to all of India.” What a strange way to frame the question given that the Internet is not a human right in most jurisdictions.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.deccanherald.com/content/520860/free-basics-negating-net-parity.html">Deccan Herald</a> on January 3, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free Basics is gratis service offered by Facebook in partnership with telcos in 37 countries. It is a mobile app that features less than a 100 of the 1 billion odd websites that are currently available on the WWW which in turn is only a sub-set of the Internet. Free Basics violates Net Neutrality because it introduces an unnecessary gatekeeper who gets to decide on “who is in” and “who is out”. Services like Free Basics could permanently alienate the poor from the full choice of the Internet because it creates price discrimination hurdles that discourage those who want to leave the walled garden.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Inika Charles and Arhant Madhyala, two interns at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), surveyed 1/100th of the Facebook sample, that is, 30 persons with the very same question at a café near our office in Bengaluru. Seventy per cent agreed with Facebook that the Internet was a human right but only 26 per cent thought Free Basics would achieve universal connectivity. My real point here is that numbers don’t matter. At least not in the typical way they do. Facebook dismissed Amba Kak’s independent, unfunded, qualitative research in Delhi, in their second public rebuttal, saying the sample size was only 20.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That was truly ironical. The whole point of her research was the importance of small numbers. Kak says, “For some, it was the idea of an ‘emergency’ which made all-access plans valuable.” A respondent stated: “But maybe once or twice a month, I need some information which only Google can give me... like the other day my sister needed to know results to her entrance exams.” If you consider that too mundane, take a moment to picture yourself stranded in the recent Chennai flood. The statistical rarity of a Black Swan does not reduce its importance. A more neutral network is usually a more resilient network. When we do have our next national disaster, do we want to be one of the few countries on the planet who, thanks to our flawed regulation, have ended up with a splinternet?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) chairman R S Sharma rightly expressed some scepticism around numbers when he said “the consultation paper is not an opinion poll.” He elaborated: “The issue here is some sites are being offered to one person free of cost while another is paying for it. Is this a good thing and can operators have such powers?” Had he instead asked “Is this the best option?” my answer would be “no”. Given the way he has formulated the question, our answer is a lawyerly “it depends”. The CIS believes that differential pricing should be prohibited. However, it can be allowed under certain exceptional standards when it is done in a manner that can be justified by the regulator against four axes of sometimes orthogonal policy objectives. They are increased access, enhanced competition, increased user choice and contribution to openness. For example, a permanent ban on Free Basics makes sense in the Netherlands but regulation may be sufficient for India.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Gatekeeping powers</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To the second and more important part to Trai chairman’s second question on gatekeeping powers of operators, our answer is a simple “no”. But then, do we have any evidence that gatekeeping powers have been abused to the detriment of consumer and public interest? No. What do we do when we cannot, like Russell’s chicken, use induction to explain our future? Prof Simon Wren-Lew says, “If Bertrand Russell’s chicken had been an economist ...(it would have)... asked a crucial additional question: Why is the farmer doing this? What is in it for him?” There were five serious problems with Free Basics that Facebook has at least partially fixed, thanks mostly to criticism from consumers in India and Brazil. One, exclusivity with access provider; two, exclusivity with a set of web services; three, lack of transparency regarding retention of personal information; four, misrepresentation through the name of the service, Internet.org and five, lack of support for encrypted traffic. But how do we know these problems will stay fixed? Emerging markets guru Jan Chipchase tweeted asking “Do you trust Facebook? Today? Tomorrow? When its share price is under pressure and it wants to wring more $$$ from the platform?”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zero. Facebook pays telecom operators zero. The operators pay Facebook zero. The consumers pay zero. Why do we need to regulate philanthropy? Because these freebies are not purely the fruit of private capital. They are only possible thanks to an artificial state-supported oligopoly dependent on public resources like spectrum and wires (over and under public property). Therefore, these oligopolies much serve the public interest and also ensure that users are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Also provision of a free service should not allow powerful corporations to escape regulation–in jurisdictions like Brazil it is clear that Facebook has to comply with consumer protection law even if users are not paying for the service. Given that big data is the new oil, Facebook could pay the access provider in advertisements or manipulation of public discourse or by tweaking software defaults such as autoplay for videos which could increase bills of paying consumers quite dramatically.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India needs a Net Neutrality regime that allows for business models and technological innovation as long as they don’t discriminate between users and competitors. The Trai should begin regulation based on principles as it has rightly done with the pre-emptive temporary ban. But there is a need to bring “numbers we can trust” to the regulatory debate. We as citizens need to establish a peer-to-peer Internet monitoring infrastructure across mobile and fixed lines in India that we can use to crowd source data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(The writer is Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. He says CIS receives about $200,000 a year from WMF, the organisation behind Wikipedia, a site featured in Free Basics and zero-rated by many access providers across the world)</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-herald-january-3-2016-sunil-abraham-free-basics-negating-net-parity'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-herald-january-3-2016-sunil-abraham-free-basics-negating-net-parity</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFree BasicsNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-01-03T05:58:00ZBlog EntryIndia’s net neutrality debate is unique and complex
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india2019s-net-neutrality-debate-is-unique-and-complex
<b>Connectivity to millions in India is main issue </b>
<div id="stcpDiv" style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Pratap Vikram Singh was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.governancenow.com/gov-next/egov/indias-net-neutrality-debate-unique-complex">published in Governance Now</a> on December 14, 2015.</div>
<hr />
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">The net neutrality debate has perplexed layman and policy experts alike. For a developing country like India, where a majority of the population doesn’t have access to internet, whether government should stick to the core principles or should it allow flexibility in network management practices to operators is still not clear yet. Whether India should go for an overarching, prophylactic regulation (ex ante), prohibiting any kind of zero rating, or should it adopt evidence-based, contextual regulation (ex post facto)? Whether zero rating should be allowed and if allowed then on what conditions? This is what experts from telecom industry and civil society deliberated in a round table on network neutrality jointly organised by Observer Research Foundation and Centre for Internet and Society on Saturday.<br /> <br /> Neutrality refers to open and non-discriminatory nature of internet; information (or say data packets) has always flown freely on the network. Facebook, Google and many other internet businesses have emerged as a result of free and non discriminatory nature of internet.<br /> <br /> Warning against taking a 'doctrinaire' approach to net neutrality, a telecom industry expert said that regulators must have flexibility to respond to market demand in the telecom industry. Adding that Indian market is unique with more than seven-ten telecom operators providing internet facility, the expert said that net neutrality will play differently in developing countries.<br /> <br /> He said if implemented properly, the zero-rating approach or sponsored content followed by TSPs, “can be one of the ways to scale up internet access” to the unconnected regions.<br /> <br /> Another industry expert said that the regulations on network neutrality has to be contextualized in terms of geography. He criticized the ‘savetheinternet’ movement, which galvanised support of one million internet users in favour of strict neutrality, for preventing one billion people from accessing ‘free’ internet. He said that telecom operators’ revenue from zero rating plans is less than one percent.<br /> <br /> He was also against bringing net neutrality under the purview of competition commission of India. He said that there are already several laws related to consumer protection, information technology and monopoly to deal with situations arising out of neutrality issue.<br /> <br /> An internet freedom activist said that zero rating can be allowed under stringent conditions of transparency, non-exclusivity and reasonability. He said that one way of setting the neutrality debate would be to allow zero rating with an amount of equal rating. This means that telecom players can offer toll free access to certain websites but they would also have to provide free 100 Mb or 200 Mb data connectivity within which a user can access any website or app for free.<br /> <br /> “Countries like the US can afford to debate on net neutrality as almost 90 percent of their population are connected to internet. Here (in India) we should first worry about providing internet access to our people,” an ORF researcher said, speaking on the sidelines of the roundtable discussion. <br /> <br /> The neutrality debate is getting momentum again with TRAI’s consultation paper being released on December 9. In its second paper, TRAI suggested, “that TSPs could provide initial data consumption for free, without limiting it to any particular content. Current examples of this approach include allowing free browsing or discounted tariffs for specified time windows, or giving away a certain amount of data for free.”<br /> <br /> The regulator also called for regulation that “must seek a balance between ensuring wider access to the internet,” and in the manner that does not allow discrimination in charging tariffs from the users consuming varied content. The regulator has asked all stakeholders in telecom industry to come up with alternative methods in order to provide free access of internet to the consumers, and keep competition and innovation in the market intact.</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india2019s-net-neutrality-debate-is-unique-and-complex'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india2019s-net-neutrality-debate-is-unique-and-complex</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-12-30T16:38:45ZNews ItemThe Free Basics debate: Trai has a point in imposing temporary ban on net neutrality
http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/the-free-basics-debate-trai-has-a-point-in-imposing-temporary-ban-on-net-neutrality
<b>The argument against net neutrality in India is simple. Regulation cannot be based on dogma – evidence of harm must be provided before you can advocate for rules for ISPs and telecom operators.</b>
<p>The article was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.firstpost.com/india/the-free-basics-debate-trai-has-a-point-in-imposing-temporary-ban-on-net-neutrality-2558884.html"><b>FirstPost</b></a> on December 24, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But net neutrality regardless of your preferred definition is a very complex regulatory question and there is no global or even national consensus on what counts as relevant evidence. To demonstrate the chain of causality between network neutrality violations and a variety of potential harms - expertise in a wide variety of fields such as economics, competition law, telecom policy, spectrum allocation, communications engineering and traffic management is required. Even with a very large research budget and a multidisciplinary team it would be impossible to predict with confidence what the impact of a particular regulatory option will be on the digital divide or innovation. And therefore the advocates of forbearance say that the Indian telecom regulator — Trai — should not regulate unprecedented technical and business model innovations like Facebook's Free Basics since we don't understand them.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Till recently I agreed with this empirical line of argument. But increasingly I am less convinced that scientific experiment and evidence is the only basis for regulation. Perhaps there is a small but necessary role for principles or ideology. Like the subtitle of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book, we need to ask: How to Live in a World We Don't Understand. Let us take another area of technological regulation – cyber security. Do we really need to build a centralised database containing the passwords of all netizens and perform scientific experiments on it to establish that it can be compromised? A 100 percent centralised system has a single point of failure and therefore from a security perspective centralisation is almost always a bad idea. How are we so sure that such a system will be compromised at some date? To quote Sherlock Holmes: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” Decentralisation eliminates the possibility of a single point of failure thereby growing resilience. The Internet is perhaps the most famous example. It is not necessarily true that all decentralized systems are more secure than all centralised system of a decentralized network but it is usually the case. In other words, the principle of decentralisation in cyber security does not require repeated experimental confirmation across<br />markets and technologies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To complicate matters, the most optimal solutions developed using economics and engineering may not be acceptable to most stakeholders. Professor Vishal Misra has provided a Shapley Value solution using cooperative game theory in the multi-sided market to determine how surplus should be divided between three types of ISPs [eyeball, transit and content] and Internet companies using transparent paid transit arrangements. But a migration from the current opaque arrangement to the Misra solution may never happen because Internet companies will resist such proposals and are increasingly getting into access provision themselves through projects like Google Fibre and Loom. Walter Brown from South African Communications Forum proposes that billing by minutes for phone calls and billing by message for SMSes should be prohibited because on 4G networks voice and text messages are carried as data and price is the best signal to consumers to ensure optimum use of network resources. This according to Walter Brown will eliminate the incentive for telcos to throttle or block or charge differently for VOIP traffic. Again this solution will not be adopted by any regulator because regulators prefer incremental changes with the least amount of disruption.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So given that we only have numbers that we can't trust - what should be some of the principles that form the bedrock of our net neutrality policy? To begin with there is the obvious principle of non-discrimination. The premise is simple – anyone who has gate-keeping powers might abuse it. Therefore we need to eliminate the possibility through regulation. Non-exclusivity is the result of non-discrimination and transparency is its precondition. That can also be considered as a principle and now we have three core principles to work with. Maybe that is sufficient since we should keep principles to the bare minimum to keep regulation and compliance with regulation simple. Some net<br />neutrality experts have also identified fairness and proportionality as additional principles. How do we settle this? Through transparent and participatory policy development as has been the case so far. Once we have principles articulated in law - how can we apply them to a specific case such as Facebook's Free Basics? Through the office of the appropriate regulator. As Chris Marsden advocates, net neutrality regulations should ideally be positive and forward looking. Positive in the sense that there should be more positive obligations and incentives than prohibitions and punitive measures. Forward looking in the sense that that the regulations should not retard or block technological and business model innovations. For example zero-rated walled gardens could be regulated by requiring that promoters such as Facebook also provide 50Mb of data per day to all users of Free Basics and also by requiring that Reliance provides the very same free service to other parties that want to compete with Facebook with similar offerings. Alternatively, users of Free Basics should get access to the whole Internet every other hour. All these proposal ensure that Facebook and it business partners have a incentive to innovate but at the same time ensures that resultant harms are mitigated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Just to be absolutely clear, my defense of principle based regulation does not mean that I see no role for evidence and research. As regulation gets under way – further regulation or forbearance should be informed by evidence. But lack of evidence of harm is not an excuse for regulatory forbearance. India is the last market on the planet where the walled garden can be bigger than the Internet – and Facebook is sure giving it its very best shot. Fortunately for us Trai has acted and acted appropriately by issuing a temporary prohibition till regulation has been finalised. Like the US, coming up with stable regulation may take 10 years and we cannot let Facebook shape the market till then.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/the-free-basics-debate-trai-has-a-point-in-imposing-temporary-ban-on-net-neutrality'>http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/the-free-basics-debate-trai-has-a-point-in-imposing-temporary-ban-on-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publishersunilTelecomFeaturedNet Neutrality2015-12-25T14:58:30ZBlog EntryFacebook Shares 10 Key Facts about Free Basics. Here's What's Wrong with All 10 of Them.
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them
<b>Shweta Sengar of Catch News spoke to Sunil Abraham about the recent advertisement by Facebook titled "What Net Neutrality Activists won't Tell You or, the Top 10 Facts about Free Basics". Sunil argued against the validity of all the 'top 10 facts'.</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Facebook has rebranded internet.org as Free Basics. After suffering from several harsh blows from the net neutrality activists in India, the social media behemoth is positioning a movement in order to capture user attention.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Apart from a mammoth two page advertisement on Free Basics on 23 December in a leading English daily, we spotted a numerous hoardings across the capital.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Unlike Facebook, Wikipedia has a rather upfront approach for raising funds. You must have noticed a pop-up as you open Wikipedia when they are in need of funds. What Facebook has done is branded Free Basics as 'free' as the basic needs of life.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The newspaper advertisement by Facebook was aimed at clearing all the doubts about Free Basics. The 10 facts highlighted a connected India and urging users to take the "first step towards digital equality."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In an interview with <em>Catch</em>, Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of Bangalore based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society, shared his thoughts on the controversial subject. Abraham countered each of Facebook's ten arguments. Take a look:</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>01</strong> Free basics is open to any carriers. Any mobile operator can join us in connecting India.</blockquote>
<p>Sunil Abraham: Free Basics was initially exclusive to only one telecom operator in most markets that it was available in.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The non-exclusivity was introduced only after activists in India complained. But now the arrangement is exclusive to Free Basics as a walled garden provider. But discrimination harms remain until other Internet services can also have what Facebook has from telecom operators ie. free access to their destinations.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>02</strong> We do not charge anyone anything for Free Basics. Period.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: As Bruce Schneier says "surveillance is the business model of the Internet". Free basics users are subject to an additional layer of surveillance ie. the data retention by the Facebook proxy server. Just as Facebook cannot say that they are ignoring Data Protection law because Facebook is a free product - they cannot say that Free Basics can violate network neutrality law because it is a free service. For ex. Flipkart should get Flipkart Basic on all Indian ISPs and Telcos.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>03</strong> We do not pay for the data consumed in Free Basics. Operators participate because the program has proven to bring more people online. Free Basics has brought new people onto mobile networks on average over 50% faster since launching the service.</blockquote>
<p>SA: Facebook has been quoting statistics as evidence to influence the policy formulation process. But we need the absolute numbers and we also need them to be independently verifiable. At the very least we need the means to cross verify these numbers with numbers that telcos and ISPs routinely submit to TRAI.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Theoretical harms must be addressed through net neutrality regulation. For example, you don't have to build a single, centralised database of all Indian citizens to know that it can be compromised - from a security design perspective centralisation is always a bad idea. Gatekeeping powers given to any powerful entity will be compromised. While evidence is useful, regulation can already begin based on well established regulatory principles. After scientific evidence has been made available - the regulation can be tweaked.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>04</strong> Any developer or publisher can have their content on Free Basics. There are clear technical specs openly published here ... and we have never rejected an app or publisher who has me these tech specs.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: Again this was only done as a retrospective fix after network neutrality activists in India complained about exclusive arrangements. For example, the music streaming service Hungama is not a low-bandwidth destination but since it was included the technical specifications only mentions large images and video files. Many of the other sites are indistinguishable from their web equivalents clearly indicating that this was just an afterthought. At the moment Free Basics has become controversial so most developers and publishers are not approaching them so there is no way for us to verify Facebook's claim.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>05</strong> Nearly 800 developers in India have signed their support for Free Basics.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: I guess these are software developers working in the services industry who don't see themselves as potential competition to Facebook or any of the services within Free Basics. Also since Facebook as been completely disingenuous when it comes to soliciting support for their campaigns it is very hard to believe these claims. It has tried to change the meaning of the phrase "net neutrality" and has framed the debate in an inaccurate manner - therefore I could quite confidently say that these developers must have been fooled into supporting Free Basics.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>06</strong> It is not a walled garden: In India, 40% of people who come online through Free Basics are paying for data and accessing the full internet within the first 30 days. In the same time period, 8 times more people are paying versus staying on just</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: Again, no absolute numbers and also no granularity in the data that makes it impossible for anyone to verify these numbers. Also there is no way to compare these numbers to access options that are respectful of network neutrality such as equal rating. If the numbers are roughly the same for equal rating and zero-rating then there is no strong case to be made for zero-rating.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>07</strong> Free Basics is growing and popular in 36 other countries, which have welcomed the program with open arms and seen the enormous benefits it has brought.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: Free Basics was one of the most controversial topics at the last Internet Governance Forum. A gratis service is definitely going to be popular but that does not mean forbearance is the only option for the regulator. In countries with strong civil society and/or a strong regulator, Free Basics has ran into trouble. Facebook has been able to launch Free Basics only in jurisdictions where regulators are still undecided about net neutrality. India and Brazil are the last battle grounds for net neutrality and that is why Facebook is spending advertising dollar and using it's infrastructure to win the global south.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>08</strong> In a recent representative poll, 86% of Indians supported Free Basics by Facebook, and the idea that everyone deserves access to free basic internet services.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: This is the poll which was framed in alarmist language where Indian were asked to choose between perpetuating or bridging the digital divide. This is a false choice that Facebook is perpetuating - with forward-looking positive Network Neutrality rules as advocated by Dr. Chris Marsden it should be possible to bridge digital divide without incurring any free speech, competition, innovation and diversity harms.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>09</strong> In the past several days, 3.2 million people have petitioned the TRAI in support of Free Basics.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: Obviously - since Free Basics is better than nothing. But the real choice should have been - are you a) against network neutrality ie. would you like to see Facebook play gatekeeper on the Internet OR b) for network neutrality ie. would you like to see Free Basics forced to comply with network neutrality rules and expand access without harms to consumers and innovators.</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote><strong>10</strong> There are no ads in the version of Facebook on Free Basics. Facebook produces no revenue. We are doing this to connect India, and the benefits to do are clear.</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify;">SA: As someone who has watched the Internet economy since the first dot com boom - it is absolutely clear that consumer acquisition is as important as revenues. They are doing it to connect people to Facebook and as a result some people will also connect to the Internet. But India is the last market on the planet where the walled garden can be bigger than the Internet, and therefore Facebook is manipulating the discourse through it's dominance of the networked public sphere.</p>
<p>Bravo to TRAI and network neutrality activists for taking Facebook on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Originally published by <a href="http://www.catchnews.com/tech-news/should-facebook-become-internet-s-gatekeeper-or-free-basics-must-comply-with-net-neutrality-sunil-abraham-has-some-thoughts-1450954347.html" target="_blank">Catch News</a>, on December 24, 2015.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them</a>
</p>
No publishersunilNet NeutralityFeaturedFacebookInternet GovernanceHomepage2015-12-25T14:59:10ZBlog EntryCIS's Position on Net Neutrality
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality
<b>As researchers committed to the principle of pluralism we rarely produce institutional positions. This is also because we tend to update our positions based on research outputs. But the lack of clarity around our position on network neutrality has led some stakeholders to believe that we are advocating for forbearance. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Please see below for the current articulation of our common institutional position.</b>
<p> </p>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Net Neutrality violations can potentially have multiple categories of harms —<strong> competition harms, free speech harms, privacy harms, innovation and ‘generativity’ harms, harms to consumer choice and user freedoms, and diversity harms</strong> thanks to unjust discrimination and gatekeeping by Internet service providers.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Net Neutrality violations (including some those forms of zero-rating that violate net neutrality) can also have different kinds benefits — enabling the <strong>right to freedom of expression</strong>, and the <strong>freedom of association</strong>, especially when access to communication and publishing technologies is increased; <strong>increased competition</strong> [by enabling product differentiation, can potentially allow small ISPs compete against market incumbents]; <strong>increased access</strong> [usually to a subset of the Internet] by those without any access because they cannot afford it, increased access [usually to a subset of the Internet] by those who don't see any value in the Internet, <strong>reduced payments</strong> by those who already have access to the Internet especially if their usage is dominated by certain services and destinations.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Given the magnitude and variety of potential harms, <strong>complete forbearance from all regulation is not an option</strong> for regulators nor is self-regulation sufficient to address all the harms emerging from Net Neutrality violations, since incumbent telecom companies cannot be trusted to effectively self-regulate. Therefore, <strong>CIS calls for the immediate formulation of Net Neutrality regulation</strong> by the telecom regulator [TRAI] and the notification thereof by the government [Department of Telecom of the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology]. CIS also calls for the eventual enactment of statutory law on Net Neutrality. All such policy must be developed in a transparent fashion after proper consultation with all relevant stakeholders, and after giving citizens an opportunity to comment on draft regulations.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Even though some of these harms may be large, CIS believes that a government cannot apply the precautionary principle in the case of Net Neutrality violations. <strong>Banning technical innovations and business model innovations is not an appropriate policy option. </strong>The regulation must toe a careful line <strong>to solve the optimization problem: </strong>refraining from over-regulation of ISPs and harming innovation at the carrier level (and benefits of net neutrality violations mentioned above) while preventing ISPs from harming innovation and user choice. ISPs must be regulated to limit harms from unjust discrimination towards consumers as well as to limit harms from unjust discrimination towards the services they carry on their networks.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Based on regulatory theory, we believe that a regulatory framework that is technologically neutral, that factors in differences in technological context, as well as market realities and existing regulation, and which is able to respond to new evidence is what is ideal.<br /><br />This means that we need a framework that has some bright-line rules based, but which allows for flexibility in determining the scope of exceptions and in the application of the rules. Candidate principles to be embodied in the regulation include: <strong>transparency, non-exclusivity, limiting unjust discrimination</strong>.<br /><br /></li>
<li>The <strong>harms emerging from walled gardens can be mitigated in a number of ways</strong>. <strong>On zero-rating the form of regulation must depend on the specific model and the potential harms that result from that model. </strong>Zero-rating can be: paid for by the end consumer or subsidized by ISPs or subsidized by content providers or subsidized by government or a combination of these; deal-based or criteria-based or government-imposed; ISP-imposed or offered by the ISP and chosen by consumers; Transparent and understood by consumers vs. non-transparent; based on content-type or agnostic to content-type; service-specific or service-class/protocol-specific or service-agnostic; available on one ISP or on all ISPs. Zero-rating by a small ISP with 2% penetration will not have the same harms as zero-rating by the largest incumbent ISP. For service-agnostic / content-type agnostic zero-rating, which Mozilla terms ‘<strong>equal rating</strong>’, CIS advocates for<strong> no regulation.</strong><br /><br /></li>
<li>CIS believes that <strong>Net Neutrality regulation for mobile and fixed-line access must be different</strong> recognizing the fundamental differences in technologies.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>On specialized services CIS believes that there should be logical separation</strong> and that all details of such specialized services and their impact on the Internet must be made transparent to consumers both individual and institutional, the general public and to the regulator. Further, such services should be available to the user only upon request, and not without their active choice, with the requirement that the service cannot be reasonably provided with ‘best efforts’ delivery guarantee that is available over the Internet, and hence requires discriminatory treatment, or that the discriminatory treatment does not unduly harm the provision of the rest of the Internet to other customers.<br /><br /></li>
<li>On incentives for telecom operators, CIS believes that the government should consider different models such as waiving contribution to the Universal Service Obligation Fund for prepaid consumers, and freeing up additional spectrum for telecom use without royalty using a shared spectrum paradigm, as well as freeing up more spectrum for use without a licence.<br /><br /></li>
<li>On reasonable network management CIS still does not have a common institutional position.<br /><br /></li></ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFeaturedHomepageNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-12-09T13:06:06ZBlog EntryAccess at the cost of Net neutrality?
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-october-8-2015-suhrith-parthasarathy-access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality
<b>In the Net neutrality debate, there is a conflict between two core values: ease of access and neutrality. The ease of access promised by applications like Free Basics compromises neutrality and may later morph into a method of predatory pricingIf programs that bring access to a part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could eventually lead to telecom companies abusing their dominant positionsIn the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to discriminate between different applications. Though they have not yet exploited this autonomy fully, they are certainly moving towards that.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Suhrith Parthasarathy was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality/article7735242.ece">published in the Hindu</a> on October 8, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier this year, the social media giant, Facebook, <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/facebook-rings-reliance-communications-for-free-data-access/article6878396.ece">formalised a partnership</a> with Reliance Communications that enabled the Indian company to provide access to over 30 different websites, without any charge on mobile data accruing to the ultimate user. The platform, originally known as “Internet.org,” has now been <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/facebook-rebrands-internetorg-platform-as-free-basics-by-facebook/article7686680.ece">rebranded</a> as “Free Basics,” Facebook announced last month. Its fundamental ethos, though, remains unchanged. It allows Reliance’s subscribers to surf completely free of cost a bouquet of websites covered within the scheme, which includes, quite naturally, <a href="http://facebook.com" target="_blank">facebook.com</a>. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, views this supposed initiative as a philanthropic gesture, as part of a purported, larger aim to bring access to the Internet to those people who find the costs of using generally available mobile data prohibitive.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Neutrality, an interpretive concept</b><br /> On the face of it, this supposed act of altruism appears to be commendable. But, there are many critics — some of whom have come together to launch a website “<a href="http://savetheinternet.in" target="_blank">savetheinternet.in</a>” with a view to defending Internet freedom — who argue that Free Basics violates what has come to be known as the principle of network (or Net) neutrality.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">While it is clear to all of us that a notion of Net neutrality involves some regulation of the Internet, it is less clear what the term actually means. Like any phrase that involves either a moral or a legal obligation, Net neutrality is also an interpretive concept. People who employ the term to denote some sort of binding commitment, or at the least an aspirational norm, often tend to disagree over precisely how the idea ought to be accomplished. Tim Wu — an American lawyer and presently a professor at the Columbia University — who coined the term, views the notion of Net neutrality as signifying an Internet that does not favour any one application over another. In other words, the idea is to ensure that Internet service providers do not discriminate content by either charging a fee for acting as its carrier or by incorporating any technical qualifications.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">In India, there is no law that expressly mandates the maintenance of a neutral Internet. This March, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/trai-seeks-views-to-regulate-netbased-calling-messaging-apps/article7039815.ece">released a draft consultation paper </a>seeking the public’s views on whether the Internet needed regulation. Unfortunately, much of its attention was focussed on the <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/policy-proposes-storage-of-all-messages-mandatory-for-90-days/article7674762.ece">supposedly pernicious impact </a>of applications such as WhatsApp and Viber. “In a multi-ethnic society there is a vital need,” wrote TRAI, “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 questions, therefore, in its view were these: should at least some Internet applications be amenable to a greater regulation, and should they compensate the telecom service providers in addition to the data charges that the consumers pay directly for the use of mobile Internet?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">In any event, as things stand, in the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual <i>carte blanche</i> to discriminate between different applications. Though these companies have not yet completely exploited this autonomy, they are certainly proceeding towards such an exercise. In April this year, <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/airtel-launches-platform-offering-free-access-to-certain-apps/article7077204.ece">Airtel announced Airtel Zero</a>, an initiative that would allow applications to purchase data from Airtel in exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers free of cost.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">On the face of it, this programme appears opposed to Net neutrality. But what is even more alarming is that mobile Internet service providers could, in the future, plausibly also control the speeds at which different applications are delivered to consumers. For example, if WhatsApp were to subscribe to Airtel Zero by paying the fee demanded by the company, Airtel might accede to offering WhatsApp to consumers at a pace superior to that at which other applications are run. This kind of discrimination, as Nikhil Pahwa, one of the pioneers of the Save The Internet campaign, has argued, is prototypically opposed to Net neutrality. It tends to breed an unequal playing field, and, if allowed to subsist, it could create a deep division in the online world. Ultimately, we must view Net neutrality as a concept that stands for the values that we want to build as a society; it pertains to concerns about ensuring freedom of expression and about creating an open space for ideas where democracy can thrive. There is a tendency, though, to view those who support Net neutrality as representing a supercilious position. Such criticism is unquestionably blinkered, but it also highlights certain telling concerns.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">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. After all, if nothing else, Airtel Zero and Free Basics bring, at the least, some portions of the Internet to people who otherwise have no means to access the web. What we have, therefore, at some level, is 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.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet, in its purest form, is a veritable fountain of information. At its core lies a commitment to both openness and a level playing field, where an ability to innovate is perennially maintained. It is difficult to argue against Facebook when it says that some access is better than no access at all. But one of the problems with Free Basics, and indeed with Airtel Zero too, is that the consumer has no choice in which websites he or she might want to access free of cost. If this decision is made only by Facebook, which might argue that it gives every developer an equal chance to be a part of its project as long as it meets a certain criteria, what we have is almost a paternalistic web. In such a situation, information, far from being free, is shackled by constraints imposed by the service provider.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Laudable end, unethical means</b><br /> This is precisely one of the concerns raised by those arguing in favour of Net neutrality, who, it is worth bearing in mind, aren’t resistant to the idea of a greater penetration of the Internet. 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. Yes, Airtel Zero and Free Basics would bring to the less-privileged amongst us some access to the Internet, but the question is this: at what cost?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The worry is that if the programs that bring access to a part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could eventually lead to these telecom companies abusing their dominant positions. No doubt, as Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, has argued, it might require a deeper analysis to argue convincingly that packages such as Free Basics and Airtel Zero require immediate invalidation in their present forms; significantly, the former does not demand payments from the applications while the latter is premised on such consideration. But, viewed holistically, the companies’ actions could potentially be characterised as a form of predatory pricing, where consumers might benefit in the short run, only for serious damage to ensue to competition in the long run.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">It is, therefore, necessary that any debate on the issue must address the tension between the two apparently conflicting goals — the importance of maintaining a neutral Internet and the need to ensure a greater access to the web across the country. Mr. 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.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">But the history of markets tells us that we have to be very careful in allowing predatory practices, devised to achieve short-term goals, to go unbridled. As citizens, each of us has a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. If we were to get the balance between these two values wrong, if we were to allow the domination, by a few parties, of appliances that facilitate a free exchange of ideas, in a manner that impinges on the Internet’s neutrality, our most cherished civil liberties could well be put to grave danger.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">(<i>Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate in the Madras High Court.</i>)</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-october-8-2015-suhrith-parthasarathy-access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-october-8-2015-suhrith-parthasarathy-access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-10-09T01:18:31ZNews ItemNet Neutrality: India is a Keybattle Ground
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hardnewsmedia-august-10-2015-abeer-kapoor-net-neutrality-india-is-a-keybattle-ground
<b>Hardnews talks to Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), about the future of the Internet in India.</b>
<p id="stcpDiv" style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Abeer Kapoor was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2015/08/net-neutrality-india-keybattle-ground">published in Hardnews</a> on August 10, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>There are competing definitions of net neutrality. What do you think an Indian definition of net neutrality should be?</b><br />It should be driven by an empirical understanding of the harms and benefits for Indian consumers. Any regulation should be based on evidence of harm. Forbearance should be the first option for any regulator. The second option is mandating transparency. The third option, as (Managing Director of the World Dialogue on Regulation for Network Economies Programme) William Melody says, should be raising competition before we consider other more intrusive regulatory measures such as price regulation, mandatory registration and licensing, etc. Telling network administrators how to run their networks should be the very last option we consider. Ideally, the Competition Commission of India should have started an investigation into the competition harms emerging from network neutrality violations. There are other harms emerging from network neutrality violations, such as free speech harms, diversity harms, innovation harms and privacy harms. These residual elements should have been the focus of the TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) consultation paper process, the DoT (Department of Telecommunications) panel process and the consultations of the parliamentary standing committee.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>There are certain rights that are essential, like privacy. How do you think the right to privacy will play into the definition of Indian net neutrality?</b><br />Deep packet inspection – which is a method that is used to manage Internet traffic and walled garden access via mobile applications – causes significant privacy harms and gives rise to a range of security vulnerabilities. These cannot be directly addressed in network neutrality policy. On privacy and security, it is not clear that the Indian situation is different from the global trend, so it is unlikely that we will have an India-specific privacy language in our network neutrality policy.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Privacy harms caused by network neutrality violations have to be addressed by enacting the privacy bill into law. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has been working on this Bill for the last five or six years. The latest draft has implemented the recommendations of the Justice AP Shah Committee. The last leak of the privacy Bill revealed that the DoPT has included the nine principles identified by the <span><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">Shah Committee Report on Privacy</a></span>. We hope that the government will introduce this Bill at the earliest. Section 43A of the IT Act may also need to be amended to address all the nine privacy principles.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>The report drafted by DoT on net neutrality is ambiguous and almost reluctant to take a stand. What are the key points of this report?</b><br />The <span><a href="https://mygov.in/sites/default/files/master_image/Net_Neutrality_Committee_report.pdf">DoT panel report</a> </span>does take a stand. It clearly identifies network neutrality as a policy goal. Unfortunately, the panel did not provide its own definition of network neutrality, but instead quoted a definition submitted by civil society activists who testified before it without explicitly adopting it. The panel report examines zero rating and legitimate traffic management in quite a bit of detail and does prescribe some regulatory decision trees to the policymakers. When it comes to specialised services and walled gardens there could have been more detailed and specific recommendations. The biggest disappointment in the report is the call for licensing of those OTT (Over the Top) service providers that provide equivalent services to those provided by telcos. While the need to address regulatory arbitrage from the perspective of privacy and surveillance law may be virtuous, it may not be technically feasible to do so, especially if there is end-to-end encryption. Also, regulatory arbitrage could be addressed by reducing regulations for telcos rather than increasing them for </span><span>OTT providers.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>Do you think licensing and regulation of OTT services such as Google and WhatsApp are a necessity?</b><br />It is a myth that they exist in a regulatory vacuum. Many regulations do apply to them and a few of them do comply with Indian authorities on issues like speech regulation, legal interception and also data access. With competition law and taxation there is very little compliance. The trouble is not that there are regulatory vacuums, but rather that these services operate from foreign jurisdictions. Without offices, servers and human resources within the Indian jurisdiction it is very difficult for the courts to implement their orders, and for law enforcement to ensure compliance with Indian laws. This jurisdictional challenge affects most developing countries and not just India, and can only be solved by harmonising procedural and substantive law across jurisdictions, through the spread of soft norms, development of self-regulatory mechanisms using the multi-stakeholder models and through the creation of international law through various multilateral and pluri-lateral bodies.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>The report reduces the neutrality debate to ‘access.’ Do you think this approach is reductive?</b><br />Access is very important in the Indian context so I don’t see how that is reductive. Many observers believe that the next round in the war for network neutrality will happen in the global South. India is a key battleground – what happens here will have global impact and implications. Network neutrality policies need to consider free speech, privacy, competition, diversity and innovation goals of the markets they seek to regulate. If we are not being doctrinaire about network neutrality we could adopt what (Professor of Internet & Media Law at the University of Sussex) Chris Marsden calls forward-looking “positive net neutrality” wherein “higher QoS (Quality of Service) for higher prices should be offered on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory [FRAND] terms to all comers”. FRAND, according to Prof. Marsden, is well understood by the telcos and ISPs (Internet Service Providers) as it is the basis of common carriage. This understanding of network neutrality allows for technical and business model innovation by ISPs and telcos without the associated harms. There are zero-rating services being launched by Mozilla, Jaana, Mavin and others that are attempting to do this. I do not believe that they violate network neutrality principles, unlike Airtel Zero or Internet.org.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>While this report attempts to arrive at a middle ground between the TSPs and the OTTs, how is this going to reflect in the government’s ‘Digital India’ programme?</b><br />We know we have a policy solution when all stakeholders are equally unhappy. But we also need an elegant solution that is easy to implement. Scholars like (Associate Professor of Computer Science at Columbia University) Vishal Mishra have a theoretical solution based on the Shapley Value, that assumes a multi-sided market model, but this may not work in real life. Professor V. Sridhar of the International Institute of Information Technology, Bengaluru (IIITB) has a very elegant idea of setting a ceiling and floor for price and speed and also for insisting on a minimum QoS of the whole of the Internet. These ideas I have not heard in the American and European debate around network neutrality. I remain hopeful that the Indian middle ground will be qualitatively different, given that the structure and constraints of the Indian telecom sector are very different from that in developed countries. Ensuring network neutrality is essential to the success of Digital India. Unfortunately, the Digital India plans that we have heard so far don’t make this </span><span>explicitly clear.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>The Internet was never meant to be monetised. Do you think that private players are eating into a public good that is absolutely necessary for development?</b><br />I have never heard that statement before. <a href="http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2011/06/3992"><span>The Internet</span>, <span>after its early history, has been completely built using private capital</span></a>. The public Internet has always been monetised. Collectively, the individual entrepreneurs and enterprises that build and run the components of the Internet have created a common public good – which is the globally interconnected network. But the motivation for private capital behind maintaining and building their corner or component of this network has also been profit maximisation.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>What has contributed to the growing need to regulate and administer the Internet?</b><br />Technical advancements and business model innovations have resulted in both benefits and harms and therefore there could be a rationale for regulation. But more regulation per se is not a virtue and does not serve the interest of citizens and consumers. Expanding the regulatory scope of government infinitely will only result in failure, given the limited capacity and resources of the State. Therefore, whenever the State enters a new area of regulation it should ideally stop regulating in another area. In other words, there is no clear case that the regulation of the Internet is needed to keep growing exponentially – as evolving technologies may require specific regulation – if the resultant harms cannot be addressed using existing law. In most cases, traditional law is sufficient to deal with crimes and offences online.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span> </span></p>
<hr />
<p>This story is from the print issue of Hardnews: August 2015</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hardnewsmedia-august-10-2015-abeer-kapoor-net-neutrality-india-is-a-keybattle-ground'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hardnewsmedia-august-10-2015-abeer-kapoor-net-neutrality-india-is-a-keybattle-ground</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-09-20T07:08:42ZNews ItemClearing Misconceptions: What the DoT Panel Report on Net Neutrality Says (and Doesn't)
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/clearing-misconceptions-dot-panel-net-neutrality
<b>There have been many misconceptions about what the DoT Panel Report on Net Neutrality says: the most popular ones being that they have recommended higher charges for services like WhatsApp and Viber, and that the report is an anti-Net neutrality report masquerading as a pro-Net neutrality report. Pranesh Prakash clears up these and other incorrect notions about the report in this brief analysis.</b>
<h2>Background of the DoT panel</h2>
<p>In January 2015, <a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-01-24/news/58408287_1_consultation-paper-viber-skype">the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) formed a panel</a> to look into "net neutrality from public policy objective, its advantages and limitations," as well the impact of a "regulated telecom services sector and unregulated content and applications sector". After spending a few months collecting both oral and written testimony from a number of players in this debate, and analysing it, on July 16 that panel submitted its <a href="http://www.dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/u68/Net_Neutrality_Committee_report.pdf">report to the DoT</a> and released it to the public for comments (till August 15, 2015). At the same time, independently, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is also considering the same set of issues. TRAI received more than a million responses in response to its consultation paper — the most TRAI has ever received on any topic — the vast majority of of them thanks in part to the great work of <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.in">the Save the Internet campaign</a>. TRAI is yet to submit its recommendations to the DoT. Once those recommendations are in, the DoT will have to take its call on how to go ahead with these two sets of issues: regulation of certain Internet-based communications services, and net neutrality.</p>
<h2>Summary of the DoT panel report</h2>
<p>The DoT panel had the tough job of synthesising the feedback from dozens of people and organizations. In this, they have done an acceptable job. Although, in multiple places, the panel has wrongly summarised the opinions of the "civil society" deponents: I was one of the deponents on the day that civil society actors presented their oral submissions, so I know. For instance, the panel report notes in 4.2.9.c that "According to civil society, competing applications like voice OTT services were eroding revenues of the government and the TSPs, creating security and privacy concerns, causing direct as well as indirect losses." I do not recall that being the main thrust of any civil society participant's submission before the panel. That having been said, one might still legitimately claim that none of these or other mistakes (which include errors like "emergency" instead of "emergence", "Tim Burners Lee" instead of "Tim Berners-Lee", etc.) are such that they have radically altered the report's analysis or recommendations.</p>
<p>The report makes some very important points that are worth noting, which can be broken into two broad headings:</p>
<h3>On governmental regulation of OTTs</h3>
<ol>
<li>Internet-based (i.e., over-the-top, or "OTT") communications services (like WhatsApp, Viber, and the like) are currently taking advantage of "regulatory arbitrage": meaning that the regulations that apply to non-IP communications services and IP communications services are different. Under the current "unified licence" regime, WhatsApp, Viber, and other such services don't have to get a licence from the government, don't have to abide by anti-spam Do-Not-Disturb regulations, do not have to share any part of their revenue with the government, do not have to abide by national security terms in the licence, and in general are treated differently from other telecom services. The report wishes to bring these within a licensing regime.</li>
<li>The report distinguishes between Internet-based voice calls (voice over IP, or VoIP) and messaging services, and doesn't wish to interfere with the latter. It also distinguishes between domestic and international VoIP calls, and believes only the former need regulation. It is unclear on what bases these distinctions are made.</li>
<li>OTT "application services" do not need special telecom-oriented regulation.</li>
<li>There should a separation in regulatory terms between the network layer and the service layer. While this doesn't mean much in the short-term for Net neutrality, it will be very important in the long-term for ICT regulation, and is very welcome.</li>
</ol>
<h3>On Net neutrality</h3>
<ol>
<li>The core principles of Net neutrality — which are undefined in the report, though definitions proposed in submissions they've received are quoted — should be adhered to. In the long-run, these should find place in a new law, but for the time being they can be enforced through the licence agreement between the DoT and telecom providers.</li>
<li>On the contentious issue of zero-rating, a process that involves both ex-ante and ex-post regulation is envisaged to prevent harmful zero-rating, while allowing beneficial zero-rating. Further, the report notes that the supposed altruistic or "public interest" motives of the zero-rating scheme do not matter if they result in harm to competition, distort consumer markets, violate the core tenets of Net neutrality, or unduly benefit an Internet "gatekeeper".</li>
</ol>
<h2>Where does the DoT panel report go wrong?</h2>
<ol>
<li>The proposal by the DoT panel of a licensing regime for VoIP services is a terrible idea. It would presumptively hold all licence non-holders to be unlawful, and that should not be the case. While it is in India's national interest to want to hold VoIP services to account if they do not follow legitimate regulations, it is far better to do this through ex-post regulations rather than an ex-ante licensing scheme. A licensing scheme would benefit Indian VoIP companies (including services like Hike, which Airtel has invested in) over foreign companies like Viber. The report also doesn't say how one would distinguish between OTT communication services and OTT application services, when many apps such as food ordering apps, including text chat facilities. Further, VoIP need not be provided by a company: I run my own XMPP servers, which is a protocol used for both text and video/voice. Will a licensing regime force me to become a licence-holder or will it set a high bar? The DoT panel report doesn't say. Will there be a revenue-sharing mechanism, as is currently the case under the Unified Licence? If so, how will it be calculated in case of services like WhatsApp? These questions too find no answer in the report. All in all, this part of the report's analysis is found to be sadly wanting.</li>
<li>Many important terms are left undefined, and many distinctions that the report draws are left unexplained. For instance, it is unclear on what regulatory basis the report distinguishes between domestic and international VoIP calls — which is an unenforceable (not to mention regulatorily unimportant) distinction — or between regulation of messaging services and VoIP services, or what precisely they mean by "application-agnostic" and "application-specific" network management (since different scholars on this issue mean different things when they say "application").</li>
</ol>
<h2>What does the DoT panel report mean for consumers?</h2>
<ol>
<li>Not too much currently, since the DoT panel report is still just a set of recommendations by an expert body based on (invited) public consultations.</li>
<li>
<p>Does it uphold Net neutrality?
The DoT panel report is clear that they strongly endorse the "core principles of Net neutrality". On the issue of "zero-rating", the panel proposes some sound measures, saying that there should be a two-part mechanism for ensuring that harmful zero-rating doesn't go through: First, telecom services need to submit zero-rating tariff proposals to an expert body constituted by DoT; and second consumers will be able to complain about the harmful usage of zero-rating by any service provider, which may result in a fine. What constitutes harm / violation of Net neutrality? The panel suggests that any tariff scheme that may harm competition, distorts the consumer market, or violates the core principles of Net neutrality is harmful. This makes sense.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>Will it increase cost of access to WhatsApp and Viber?
Well, one the one hand, zero-rating of those services could decrease the cost of access to WhatsApp and Viber, but that might not be allowed if the DoT panel recommendations are accepted, since that would possibly be judged to harm competition and distort the consumer markets.
The DoT panel has also recommended bringing such services within a licensing framework to bridge the "regulatory arbitrage" that they are able benefit from (meaning that these services don't have to abide by many regulations that a telecom provider has to follow). Whether this will lead to WhatsApp and similar services charging depends on what kinds of regulations are placed on them, and if any costs are imposed on them. If the government decides to take the approach they took to ISPs in the late 90s (essentially, charging them Re. 1 as the licence fee), doesn't impose any revenue sharing (as they currently require of all telecom services), etc., then there needn't be any overly burdensome costs that WhatsApp-like services will need to pass on to consumers.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<h2>What misunderstandings do people have?</h2>
<ol>
<li>There are multiple <a href="http://www.businessinsider.in/Heres-why-your-Whatsapp-and-viber-calls-might-be-charged-in-sometime/articleshow/48110720.cms">news</a> <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/whats-up-with-whatsapp-calls/article7442748.ece">reports</a> that the DoT panel has recommended increased charges for domestic VoIP calls, or that ISPs will now be able to double-charge. Both of these are untrue. The DoT panel's recommendations are about "regulatory arbitrage" and licensing, which need not be related to cost.</li>
<li>There is a fear that the exception from net neutrality of "managed services and enterprise services" is a "loophole", or that exceptions for "emergency services" and "desirable public or government services" are <a href="http://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/activists-give-telecom-panel-a-zero-on-zero-rating-on-net-neutrality-report/48110380">too vague and carry the potential of misuse</a>. If one goes by the examples that the panel cites of managed services (e.g., services an ISP provides for a private company separately from the rest of the Internet, etc.), these fear seems largely misplaced. We must also realize the the panel report is a report, and not legislation, and the rationale for wanting exemptions from Net neutrality are clear.</li>
<li>The DoT panel has <a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-dot-report-rekindles-fire-over-net-neutrality-2106145">given the go-ahead for zero-rating</a>. Once again, this is untrue. The panel cites instances of zero-rating that aren't discriminatory, violative of Net neutrality and don't harm competition or distort consumer markets (such as zero-rating of all Internet traffic for a limited time period). Then it goes on to state that the regulator should not allow zero-rating that violates the core principles of Net neutrality.</li>
</ol>
<p>What's missing in the Net neutrality debate is nuance. It's become a debate in which you are either <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/www.hindustantimes.com/comment/net-neutrality-either-you-are-for-it-or-against-it/article1-1370387.aspx">for Net neutrality or against it</a>. However, none of the underlying components of Net neutrality — a complex mix of competition policy, innovation policy, the right to freedom of expression, etc. — are absolutes; therefore, it is clear that Net neutrality cannot be an absolute either.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/clearing-misconceptions-dot-panel-net-neutrality'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/clearing-misconceptions-dot-panel-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-07-21T12:36:26ZBlog Entry