The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 15.
Mapping Web Censorship & Net Neutrality Violations
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations
<b></b>
<p> </p>
<p>For over a year, researchers at the Centre
for Internet and Society have been studying website blocking by internet
service providers (ISPs) in India. We have learned that major ISPs
don’t always block the same websites, and also use different blocking
techniques. <strong>To take this study further, and map net neutrality violations by ISPs, we need your help.</strong>
We have developed CensorWatch, a research tool to collect empirical
evidence about what websites are blocked by Indian ISPs, and which
blocking methods are being used to do so. Read more about this project (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/qxKoDnnG4cR8mPZaiOr8immlHKFilRoRSYOvX_26BcZRtiN_hoo5VrFfQHbDqaES1OV6jUM0RbWCZs1ODSHr_Pf9yeJFesRxxQvyUrZm4Tlcvdjmh232QQV3fOkmrj9wiVh5LQiW1LQAprvYWmHp_s-TW5ZdNXZY07QvlFR01dKzIxnv7TorEfkyazo" target="_blank">link</a>), <strong>download CensorWatch</strong> (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/F9Wsq5zbx6VJKZxrsjYFy3Q5-jSkk0-3nr5hBfuyQiDUEKyEm_fLY6kh4W9MB7GOLoPZbowqsXDT17DEmFgMoFY4IIOEjxq0rNCtFeEc7b-0GSnRPeLDi9VmYX5WE1vGlwMvM7BPtyfmXD6lNdIWzAdjq_MpSqWRACk3JJNPhzqieJXoEoOnY8WH1rxR4HnJwDjyJHSkHgMTmWcm0POB_kDOtt2fk_GnXkkjv5LK7MxRZe8f" target="_blank">link</a>), and help determine if ISPs are complying with India’s net neutrality regulations.</p>
<div>
<p> </p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.censorwatch.netprobesapp"><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/censorwatch/" alt="null" width="75%" /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>Learn more about website blocking in India, through our recent work on the issue —</div>
<ol><li>Using information from court orders,
user reports, and government orders, and running network tests from six
ISPs, Kushagra Singh, Gurshabad Grover and Varun Bansal presented the <strong>largest study of web blocking</strong>
in India. Through their work, they demonstrated that major ISPs in
India use different techniques to block websites, and that they don’t
block the same websites (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/mgmW9wuVo0QjRGqm9DnDQiVT4lYy3lgY5maOgjAk05baH_NWtRSfznWooMtcTgQ2a059mWk91p_lMZqJAqaRHXZOLSEQQOAMeM5RowiyfY3giKQm3aDJoYnWw7VhAHeBjdkObBFF0PYWjoC1NJi21fSZyifOWm_CvlC3gq7nxbHtejEy" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>Gurshabad Grover and Kushagra Singh
collaborated with Simone Basso of the Open Observatory of Network
Interference (OONI) to study <strong>HTTPS traffic blocking in India</strong> by running experiments on the networks of three popular Indian ISPs: ACT Fibernet, Bharti Airtel, and Reliance Jio (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/oP_eOysGeBOsgRW-5k8V-ReWU_DMUhykR2wN9ZAqndgHev3bxY1c8kSSviR3jjOMqzOJhP05AfK2CtHAH8-Zv21mU7uAW2ainkl5tmS-uZx3LG15MjZXbRQyE71871AouDuXY0hLTVEVG3ovaEvb8BSFOhJz7NpnTZdsY5vIOeBqSsaB31HJdMT8bNELQJ8VjhUoNw" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>For <em>The Leaflet</em>, Torsha Sarkar and Gurshabad Grover wrote about the <strong>legal framework of blocking in India</strong>
— Section 69A of the IT Act and its rules. They considered commentator
opinions questioning the constitutionality of the regime, whether
originators of content are entitled to a hearing, and whether Rule 16,
which mandates confidentiality of content takedown requests received by
intermediaries from the Government, continues to be operative (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/WggQUDysA9mWPEzvGTRc43aPpKNmNjDcdEzj1ALhrbXgQWqnZRY9L9J45XXbJ3yCnX9-XIuYyRTQ588cBiYNQIs2KsfB0Dydz2QY4Z5VdMTdJ-RMr2M5uDqJ8Amr5gT3APy01bg8gNTyoEvdIcKryjrWnUFlTdxFAtohQ_AwVRjTbzC5FcAFhO9DdHOQV0Xp9X65At3tR17epGvo" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>In the <em>Hindustan Times</em>, Gurshabad Grover critically analysed <strong>the confidentiality requirement embedded within Section 69A of the IT Act</strong> and argued how this leads to internet users in India experiencing arbitrary censorship (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/j75HVdd7j4huKQd0kP9lusNpz1ZL0CxXMEWeySOhsQZbcKECrEKfaq52LlB-QjnT1TIB1mjqhB0TyweA7rLCq41Rd_6uyBUo8-Uc4iHiHSXYxC06rhW7o7ZFtCt7bKdNldDWkoMhSD7x0daAhzcSdLSPbNBRSy1HkGEGZ7Z_11tovlleodez9gm60zyvkGNM1YMQSLZ4NZ0k8RD2zncGPoWXjsytI4YwnQyy_QZNSKOSdY2_X6GoVSugRZhmyWwWCpHpk-yDM7XJ0OF4GZlTUSgfhcfftJEGBlQlkQ" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>Torsha Sarkar, along with Sarvjeet Singh of the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), spoke to <em>Medianama</em> delineating the <strong>procedural aspects of section 69A of the IT Act </strong>(<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/QAWrguo8Vx6X1PsmbTvCTYQ6U6nycGdSRg9gfDYFTRxUAa82nB6gYpuPyEE3VztSJzG2888ua224upBlg-k9Tu29TZdhl3ET71WwsKUfKxdyUPkLiY1A4jSD1p59sH0KXlQBqU10H38gDFHZ5WVsMCwZXLTISv9SvXIRx7Vu59U4HBV-hhB3BSpe_SApQnHQgPN0BIl0g852jSINvTI6Bh5HGNTWZ3nQWRn5H1vShoG4Q3VcZBWfewbc" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>Arindrajit Basu spoke to the <em>Times of India</em> about the <strong>geopolitical and regulatory implications</strong> of the Indian government’s move to ban fifty-nine Chinese applications from India (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/lICwdbQnezwqQKZHQ_Xso6Qp7735jleiJJJI88DgKZx348ewlSRWU1uFyEbtMwZOoJRS5MjHbX9KgklFrlc-jKTXKL2S4K5aCXEU2isCuFhwORAz_DnnBai7nr2pyiK0HmM0Eb3AD_JyTUwWtg9O6c0jV0Nf8cbTuT3FD7WypVO_NWUJ_GZVo7er10LMUXE_1EP_d2nh2uziuXXmM1JV-9NN6klSATsLa_tprf0bDNbNa_U4DHMm6oQvXFfVHj74jRhq3nKDkCzQeQZ_SRMxNNqIUIN5aMLGbQfBAziZ_E3hIYp-ptOQ7Y2cqF_4eiYdY20tBm5ltySmFBQQi5_nFQ" target="_blank">link</a>).</li></ol>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations</a>
</p>
No publisherpranavFreedom of Speech and ExpressionNet NeutralityInternet Governanceinternet governanceCensorship2020-10-05T07:59:47ZBlog EntryPackets, net neutrality and gaming public policy outcomes
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/packets-net-neutrality-and-gaming-public-policy-outcomes
<b>Gurshabad Grover attended Prof. Vishal Misra's lecture on net neutrality at Has Geek in Bangalore on August 15, 2019.</b>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6s2nM9HBiog" width="560"></iframe></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/packets-net-neutrality-and-gaming-public-policy-outcomes'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/packets-net-neutrality-and-gaming-public-policy-outcomes</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminNet NeutralityInternet Governance2019-08-28T15:15:37ZNews ItemFrom net neutrality to IBC & Aadhaar, how Vidhi is framing key government legislation
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-surabhi-agarwal-and-samanwaya-rautray-from-net-neutrality-to-ibc-and-aadhaar-how-vidhi-is-framing-key-government-legislation
<b>It's not every day that a 30-something former Oxford academic disrupts the plans of the world's biggest disruptor. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Surabhi Agarwal and Samanwaya Rautray was published in <a class="external-link" href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/from-net-neutrality-to-ibc-aadhaar-how-vidhi-is-framing-key-government-legislation/printarticle/62357565.cms">Economic Times</a> on January 4, 2018.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align: justify; ">But </span><span style="text-align: justify; ">Arghya Sengupta is no pushover — his boyish charm perfectly couches confidence, clarity and commitment towards translating law for the layman. That alone helped Sengupta and his team from the Vidhi Centre of Legal Policy to take on none other than Facebook's Mark Zukerberg and his army of public policy wonks and spin doctors during the fiery net neutrality debate, helping the telecom regulator draft guidelines. Vidhi's intervention had a huge impact and led to Facebook's Free Basics programme being called off, changing the global narrative on net neutrality forever. That zeal continues.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align: justify; ">Walk into their office in a plush Defence Colony bungalow even at 7 pm and you will feel the fervour. The day ET did, two colleagues were discussing interference in appointments to tribunals.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Judicial reforms is one of the many independent research projects Vidhi has been pursuing since it came into existence in December 2013. It has since carved out a significant role for itself in framing key government legislations — perhaps more than any legal think tank in India. In fact, several of Vidhi's independent research projects on public policy have led to commissioned assignments from the government as well as the judiciary.</span></span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>The Game Begins</span></span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Vidhi's first government assignment had to do with the ministry of finance's Public Procurement Bill. Since then, it has assisted in framing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Aadhaar Act and amendments to the Companies Act. It has also helped in drafting differential pricing norms under net neutrality guidelines issued by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. It is currently working on the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) and Data Protection Bills, and is also involved in deliberations over simplifying GST.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>So how did this not-for-profit organisation manage such velocity? Sengupta, the 33-year-old founder of Vidhi, points to the void that exists between good legal research and framing of legislations in India. "A particular problem that exists within the governance framework is that good policy ideas don't often translate into good legislation because lawyers and policy makers don't talk to each other," he says to explain where Vidhi fits in. "There is nothing special about us...Policy and law is a new area and there are very few people doing high-quality work in it." Vidhi is mostly engaged directly by ministries or departments drafting a particular law, and not by the law ministry.</span></p>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So how did this not-for-profit organisation manage such velocity? Sengupta, the 33-year-old founder of Vidhi, points to the void that exists between good legal research and framing of legislations in India. "A particular problem that exists within the governance framework is that good policy ideas don't often translate into good legislation because lawyers and policy makers don't talk to each other," he says to explain where Vidhi fits in. "There is nothing special about us...Policy and law is a new area and there are very few people doing high-quality work in it." Vidhi is mostly engaged directly by ministries or departments drafting a particular law, and not by the law ministry.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sengupta, former faculty at Pembroke College in the UK, where he taught administrative law, emphasises that Vidhi does not draft laws, only assists in their drafting. "To some, we provide inputs and research, while for others we sit together to draft the legislation."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Their primary goal is to draft better law — and they have no competition. The only other organisation coming even close is NIPFP, providing sectorial services for government committees. In that sense, NIPFP doesn't have lawyers so they may not draft the law, says Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based think tank, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). "Vidhi's efforts are pioneering and it's not surprising that they have become so successful. They are like that Mad Magazine tagline, number one in the field of one," he quips. "Other bodies such as Carnegie Mellon are vehicles for US MNCs to lobby but Vidhi doesn't have any foreign funding, so they are credible for the government," says Abraham, who was member of the Shah Committee when privacy principals were being drafted.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">An Outsider Perspective</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Drafting of legislations requires a whole lot of research. Ten years ago, there weren't any institutions that did that kind of work," says Sumit Bose, Vidhi's current chairman. This retired bureaucrat was instrumental in getting Vidhi its first project as then finance secretary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He was introduced to Sengupta through his daughter and son-in-law, a graduate of National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru. Although things are better now, Bose says, many states still don't have enough capacity for the research behind laws. "You need one foot in the door, and then it's up to you," says Sengupta, son of a teacher and banker in Kolkata.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a system where the legislative department is typically engaged to draft laws, Vidhi has emerged as the "new interface" between policy and law-making, says its board member Arvind Datar, a senior advocate in the Supreme Court. "They have the unique ability to give an outsider's perspective to any area of law." Datar says Vidhi did extensive research for former Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi in debates on Aadhaar and the National Judicial Appointments Commission.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Other members on Vidhi's board include Star India chief executive Uday Shankar, strategic adviser Ireena Vittal and NLSIU associate professor Govindraj Hegde. A Union minister familiar with Vidhi's work offers an explanation as to why the government was roping it in. "It is about comfort as well as secrecy and they bring both," he says, asking not to be identified.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A top bureaucrat who has worked extensively with Vidhi says it is not a yes man, and this sets it apart. "Many times, they refuse to include our suggestions, telling us that it will not stand the scrutiny of court or it will not be proper from a legal standpoint," he explains, also requesting anonymity. "There is a lot of research that goes into drafting a legislation, be it pertaining to international best practices or previous judgements. Post a lot of internal discussions, these inputs are included."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another government official says his department has a running advisory contract with Vidhi. "They are very young people with fresh ideas. They may not fight cases, but they do a lot of good table research, bringing up new legal points." Sengupta says not many organisations are doing similar work. "A lot of the work of this nature is done by universities."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Resistance to Change</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Among the biggest reforms Vidhi has worked on are the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Aadhaar Act, with GST being an ongoing task. Vidhi helped translate Aadhaar from an executive order to a statutory body. As for the IBC, Sengupta's assessment is that it was a reform 50 years late and essential for entrepreneurship to grow.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But what remains " Vidhi's single-most rewarding experience" is shepherding the net neutrality guidelines. "I think this government is very keen on systemic reforms. They have the appetite to change status quo," says Sengupta. Even so, some legislations Vidhi has been involved with face stiff resistance from citizen-activists.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sengupta isn't perturbed. He distinctly outlines Vidhi's purpose and role in policymaking — advise the government to ensure that a law being drafted is constitutional, clear, takes into account international best practices and can be implemented effectively. "I believe all opposition is good because it makes everybody think. A lot of the opposition—be it to Aadhaar or to payment-related clauses in IBC —is to the concept," he says. "We didn't come up with the concept so we don't see it as a criticism of our work."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Early Opportunities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Vidhi began as an idea when Sengupta was a graduate student at Oxford University. Along with a lawyer friend, he began sending unsolicited legal input to the parliamentary standing committee looking into the controversial Indo-US Nuclear Liability Bill. To the duo's surprise, it was called to depose before the committee; later, the Department of Atomic Energy sought help with some sections. "We drafted 17 sections and of those, two became law... It was a great opportunity for us," says Sengupta.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was followed by solicited and unsolicited work during 2010-12 on eight projects, including the Judicial Standards and Accountability, Prevention of Torture and Public Procurement Bills.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The think tank currently has about 40 employees and opened a second office in Bengaluru in August.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sengupta credits Vidhi's early success to Ashok Ganguly, former chairman of Hindustan Lever (now Unilever) who was also a member of Parliament. In 2011, Ganguly was putting together a representation on policy paralysis and wanted help with research. Ganguly, who would become Vidhi's first chairman, put Sengupta in touch with several people, some of whom provided grant funding to get the think tank going. That did raise some eyebrows.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Conflict of Interest</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As they spread their wings, the think tank received funding from the Mahindra Group, Pirojsha Godrej Foundat ion, Vikram Sarabhai Foundation, Jamsetji Tata Trusts, Gourab Banerji, Mohandas Pai and Rohini Nilekani. Verticals within Vidhi have separate funding. For instance, the unit working on the Judicial Reforms Bill is funded by a group called Dasra, which is a collective of philanthropists. And yet, Sengupta says "fund-raising is a constant challenge."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While government work does cover costs, it is not enough to sustain the organisation. Sengupta did not divulge how much Vidhi earns from a typical government project. Over half of the work that Vidhi does is independent research on topics ranging from clean air in Delhi to euthanasia and judicial reform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Vidhi's fundraising, though, brings up a serious issue of possible conflict of interest, given its work on key legislations such as the Aadhaar Act while being funded by entities that could be affected directly or indirectly by those legislations. For example, Rohini Nilekani, is the wife of Aadhaar architect Nandan Nilekani, who funds Vidhi which not only assisted in drafting the Aadhaar Act but is now also involved with the Data Protection Bill that has key implications on the unique identity number.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sengupta has also been called to argue in the landmark debate on whether privacy is a fundamental right — ignited after the Supreme Court received scores of petitions against Aadhaar — on request of the government's top lawyers arguing against it. Sanjay Hegde, senior Supreme Court advocate, says, "I see credibility issues when Sengupta argues in favour of Aadhaar in court in the privacy debate and, at the same time, is nominated on the Dr Srikrishna Committee, which is drafting the Data Protection Bill."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He adds, "In a city replete with think tanks and law firms, it would be interesting to see what percentage of government advisory work in terms of billing is cornered by this think tank alone."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He adds, "In a city replete with think tanks and law firms, it would be interesting to see what percentage of government advisory work in terms of billing is cornered by this think tank alone."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sengupta's defence is that Vidhi believes in transparency and doesn't accept foreign or retail funding. All funding-related information is detailed on its website, he argues. "People are free to make whatever judgement they wish to because conflict is one thing that cannot be eliminated," he says. "The moment you take funding from anybody, there will always be conflict. My answer to that is transparency."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">IVY League Talent</h3>
<p>What matters is that till date, such issues have not deterred the flow of best Ivy League talent into Vidhi. The founding team included Dhyani Mehta, who heads its environmental vertical; Devanshu Mukherjee, who leads its financial sector work and Alok Prasanna, who heads its Bengaluru office.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prasanna, had earlier worked with solicitor general Mohan Parasaran's office in Delhi in high profile cases such as the government versus Vodafone and the government versus Reliance Industries. A few "fellows"— Sriboni Sen, Rukhmini Das (pursuing a PhD now) and Ketan Paul (now litigating) — though have moved on.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yet others like Nikita Khaitan, who graduated from Yale University in the summer of 2016, have stepped in since June last year. Khaitan, who comes from the family of the Khaitan and Co law firm, heard about Vidhi from her cousins who went to the same law school as Sengupta. "Vidhi is one of the few staples where you can do quality work that is not litigation or corporate law," she says, on what clinched the decision for her to join Vidhi after Yale. "A lot of young people today want to return to India and do work which is high-impact." Now that's an argument no one can disagree with.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-surabhi-agarwal-and-samanwaya-rautray-from-net-neutrality-to-ibc-and-aadhaar-how-vidhi-is-framing-key-government-legislation'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-surabhi-agarwal-and-samanwaya-rautray-from-net-neutrality-to-ibc-and-aadhaar-how-vidhi-is-framing-key-government-legislation</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminNet NeutralityInternet Governance2018-01-04T14:45:59ZNews ItemFCC’s plan to repeal net neutrality may not impact India
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-surabhi-agarwal-november-23-2017-fcc-plan-to-repeal-net-neutrality-may-not-impact-india
<b>India is unlikely to be impacted by the US Federal Communications Commission’s plan to repeal net neutrality regulations.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in the <a class="external-link" href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/fccs-plan-to-repeal-net-neutrality-may-not-impact-india/printarticle/61760422.cms">Economic Times</a> on November 23, 2017. Sunil Abraham quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India adopted a pro-net neutrality stand by taking a tough call against zero-rated plans such as Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel Zero last year. According to experts, the Indian telecom regulator showed great courage and conviction by battling any type of preferential treatment of internet websites. This was even after a massive campaign by Facebook in support of its Free Basics programme, which promised access to a few basic services free of cost through partnerships with selected telecom service providers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Our regulator now thinks of itself as a forerunner in this space, so we doubt they are going to be influenced by the American move,” said Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bengaluru. He called the proposal to withdraw the President Barack Obama era regulations “incredible” since they took almost a decade and lots of debate to be framed. Abraham said there is no evidence to suggest that India copies what the US does and there is a long way to go before the new regulations come in.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The FCC is just one actor in this game — there are the Congress and the courts along with the Federal Trade Commission,” said Abraham, adding that the proposal is likely to be challenged at multiple levels. “I’m proposing to repeal the heavy-handed Internet regulations imposed by the Obama Administration and to return to the light-touch framework under which the Internet developed and thrived before 2015,” FCC chief Ajit Pai, who worked for Verizon Communications earlier, tweeted on Tuesday. The plan shared by Pai will be put to vote on December 14. Experts expect the plan to go through, given the Republican majority in the FCC and they fear it will allow internet service providers like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast to give preference to some sites and apps in return for a fee or for their own business interests.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“If it goes through, it will take control away from the user and companies will be free to make fast lanes and favour the content they like and play the gatekeepers,” said Mishi Choudhary, president at Software Freedom Law Centre.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">She said the conversation has once again moved the power back to internet service providers, which will hurt small companies on the pretext of innovation and getting away from micro managing. “It is certainly not bolstering the position of the US as a leader for free and open internet,” added Choudhary. Streaming service Netflix tweeted in response saying that it supports strong net neutrality and opposes the FCC’s proposal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) fought a tough battle in 2016 against plans that promised select internet services to poor people by offering them free of cost. The regulator issued differential pricing regulations by which it banned what’s known as zerorating plans. “Trai showed immense foresight by releasing the rules and this is a good opportunity for India to occupy the vacuum of leadership in this space by providing the right regulatory environment,” said Choudhary.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-surabhi-agarwal-november-23-2017-fcc-plan-to-repeal-net-neutrality-may-not-impact-india'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-surabhi-agarwal-november-23-2017-fcc-plan-to-repeal-net-neutrality-may-not-impact-india</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminNet NeutralityInternet Governance2017-11-26T11:43:59ZNews ItemWhy you should keep a close eye on the net neutrality debate in the US
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/digit-in-subhrojit-mallick-november-24-2017-why-you-should-keep-a-close-eye-on-the-net-neutrality-debate-in-the-us
<b>As the United State's FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gears up to repeal the net neutrality laws put in place in 2015, India should sit up and take note.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post by Subhrojit Mallick was published by <a class="external-link" href="https://www.digit.in/internet/why-you-should-keep-a-close-eye-on-the-net-neutrality-debate-in-the-us-38307.html">Digital.in</a> on November 24, 2017.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Back in 2014, a group of Redditors started debating net neutrality in India after Airtel announced it would charge extra for Voice Over IP (VoIP) services like Skype. Soon, that <a href="https://www.digit.in/internet/nothing-basic-about-facebooks-free-basics-28434.html" target="_blank">snowballed into a nation-wide campaign</a> with over a million internet users participating. Things didn’t help when Facebook too wanted to provide a bunch of internet services for free in India through its Internet.org or Free Basics initiative. However, a year-long discussion and public outrage against the two, led the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) <a href="https://www.digit.in/mobile-phones/trai-rules-for-net-neutrality-says-no-to-differential-pricing-28931.html" target="_blank">to rule in favour of net neutrality</a> and stop both Airtel and Facebook in their tracks of violating a free and open internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Fast forward three years down the line and America, the birthplace of the internet, is struggling with the problem of internet freedom. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the Donald Trump Administration led by Chairman Ajit Pai submitted a final draft proposal yesterday to repeal the existing net neutrality laws put in force by the Obama administration in 2015. The draft proposal will be voted upon by FCC by the end of the year and considering the FCC has a Republican majority under Ajit Pai, the proposal is likely to pass.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>What is FCC chairman Ajit Pai doing?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf" rel="Nofollow" target="_blank">The draft</a> removes almost every net neutrality rule from 2015, making ISPs the gatekeepers of the internet. It states internet providers will have the freedom to implement fast and slow speed lanes, prioritise traffic and block apps and services. The only rule they have to follow -- publicly disclose when they are doing any of the things stated above.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, Sunil Abraham elaborated on what's on Pai's mind.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Ajit Pai's ideology is pro-market. He believes the market will sort all problems out. According to Pai, the magic of competition will eliminate all the harms emerging from net neutrality violation," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Pai has said, you do what you want to do, but you have to disclose that to the public. You can block, throttle, have fast lanes, prioritise traffic, have discriminatory pricing, but you disclose them. If the customer doesn't like it, he can swith to another network. Pai believes the transparency requirements will allow the magic of the market to diminish and eliminate harm. His regulation of net neutrality is transparency," Abraham further added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, such a move will have drastic effects on the free flow of internet traffic. Telecom companies and ISPs can handpick services by charging customers to access some sites or by slowing down the speeds of others. For instance, ISPs can make consumers pay more to watch high-quality content on Netflix.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With net neutrality rules repealed, the internet will become a pay-to-play service. It will essentially divide the internet into fast and slow lanes. One will be a speedy service that could be priced higher and another, much slower and cheaper. While big players like Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix and the likes can easily pay the higher fees and stay unfettered, newcomers and smaller players will have it tough. Although, the <a href="https://geek.digit.in/2017/07/tech-companies-are-fighting-for-net-neutrality-together/" target="_blank">move will lead to cuts in profits for everyone</a>. A higher price to consumers will eat into the user base of these companies, while startups and new voices in the media will find entry and success prohibitive.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although it’s true that no single ISP in the US has the entire market to itself and the market is indeed divided into a handful of players, they do operate in a de facto monopolised way. How? ISPs in the US have sliced up the entire country into areas such that users in a particular area have only one choice of service provider. That essentially leaves users at the mercy of whatever Comcast or Spectrum is offering (or not offering).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">By putting the net neutrality rules in place in 2015, the US had ensured these ISPs won’t do anything grossly uncompetitive. The current rules make broadband in the country a public utility, same as electricity. And now, Ajit Pai-led FCC is about to repeal those very rules that kept them grounded.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Will the FCC ruling make apps and services expensive in other countries? </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While Pai’s jurisdiction does not extend beyond the United States, his tirades against a free internet will most definitely have rippling effects across the world. More importantly, it will raise the cost of operations of companies like Netflix and Amazon who will have to hire legal experts and lobbyists to negotiate deals with service providers. That extra cost will be burdened on the US consumers of course, but since they have a large international presence, it is likely that the extra cost will trickle down to users outside the US as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And that’s not just the streaming companies. All the tech giants hail from the US and it is only logical that a rise in their costs of operation will have an impact on their global operations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although, if the level playing field in the US is disrupted, companies will look for greener pastures and if that means moving out of the US to other countries, it could happen.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>How will FCC’s decision impact India?</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While US is grappling with such a reality, Indians fought against it and won. Or did they? Last year, after Airtel and Facebook were asked to drop their plans for differential pricing, TRAI <a href="https://www.digit.in/telecom/net-neutrality-20-is-india-facing-internet-traffic-discrimination-33384.html" target="_blank">released a paper on net neutrality and differential pricing</a>to finalise its views on the matter. The regulatory body released a 14-question long consultation paper seeking comments on internet traffic management from the public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Increasingly, concerns have been raised globally relating to discriminatory treatment of Internet traffic by access providers. These concerns relating to nondiscriminatory access have become the centre of a global policy debate. The purpose of this second stage of consultation is to proceed towards the formulation of final views on policy or regulatory interventions, where required, on the subject of NN,” the <a href="https://trai.gov.in/consultation-paper-net-neutrality-11" rel="Nofollow" target="_blank">paper</a> read.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Net Neutrality being repealed in the US will hurt innovation in that country, and will lead to a consolidation of power with those Internet companies which have the money to partner with US carriers. This hurts Indian product startups, because it means that their apps may not be as easily available to users in the US. The Internet is one world, and we need the same Internet to be available everywhere, across the world: one Internet for the entire world,” Nikhil Pahwa, Co-Founder of Internet Freedom Foundation told Digit.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That means, essentially, the debate on net neutrality is not over in India. In fact, both RS Sharma, the Chairman of TRAI and FCC’s Ajit Pai agree on the need to bridge the digital divide. Both are exploring ways to keep the internet open while providing access to the unconnected. Thankfully, both differs on the approach to meet that goal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pai believes the internet should be left unregulated despite the “hypothetical harms” to the consumer. He thinks the current rules were put in place to avoid theoretical harms which were not based on hard evidence. Pai claims there should be evidence-based regulation of the internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sharma, in contrast, disagrees on an evidence-based approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“The TRAI's view of Net Neutrality has so far been diametrically opposite to Ajit Pai's FCC, and with good reason. Net Neutrality ensures that all ISPs and telecom operators act as exchanges of data between users, and do not discriminate on the basis of the type or source of that data. This allows for permission-less innovation on the Internet, which has given us the Internet that we have today,” Pahwa added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong>Will India’s stance on net neutrality change after the FCC’s decision? </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rajan Mathews, Director General of Cellular Operators Association of India believes the FCC’s decision will no doubt have some impact on the path India takes.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I think the policymakers will look at the decision the US makes. They had taken their decision as a point of reference before and the FCC’s ruling is too large an issue to not look at it. Both the DoT (Department of Telecom) and TRAI will have to reevaluate their approach in the context of the what happens in the US,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Net neutrality approach in both countries is still in flux and India is going to tread lightly on net neutrality issues,” he added. As per Mathews, in India, the situation is different from the US where a handful of telecom companies and ISPs wield control of the entire country. In India, there is a licensed environment which provides a minimal standard of net neutrality, which is applied across the board and everybody who is providing a similar service is made to follow similar guidelines.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, Mathews did attribute India’s efforts to enforce net neutrality to the United States’ efforts to place the rules in the first place in 2015 under the Obama administration, when internet was deemed as a public utility, same as electricity or telephone.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Net neutrality in India emerged from the US definition. Now that they are going to repeal it, people in India who were looking at the US as a model will evaluate the implications of the move,” Mathews elaborated.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The US is looking to implement an ex-post approach to regulating the internet wherein the ISPs and telcos will adopt a free market approach and will only be investigated if they violate a rule. India, Mathews says, is adopting an ex-ante approach where there will be some commonly accepted criteria of net neutrality, but operators will have the ability to manage their traffic to ensure quality of service.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Ravi Shankar Prasad also helped alleviate fears of India following suit. During the Global Summit for Cyberspace Security held yesterday, he said, "The citizens' right of accessing the internet is "non-negotiable" and the government will not allow any company to restrict people's entry to the worldwide web."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prime Minister Narendra Modi also came in support of net neutrality in India. He tweeted, "The internet, by nature, is inclusive and not exclusive. It offers equity of access and equality of opportunity."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pahwa, who fought hard against Airtel and Facebook to ensure the internet remains neutral, was confident the decision won’t affect India’s stance on net neutrality. However, he is apprehensive that Indian telecom companies might borrow a leaf from their US counterparts and lobby hard to repeal the rules.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I don't think the FCC decision affects the Indian regulation in any way, because the Indian regulator TRAI has already established strong and well rooted principles for Net Neutrality regulations in India. The only thing that worries me is that Indian telecom operators will use the developments in the US to push back against Net Neutrality with renewed vigour,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So, on the face of it, while India is well insulated from the catastrophe the United States has embarked upon, it is important to watch what the US is doing closely and make sure we don’t repeat their mistakes here.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/digit-in-subhrojit-mallick-november-24-2017-why-you-should-keep-a-close-eye-on-the-net-neutrality-debate-in-the-us'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/digit-in-subhrojit-mallick-november-24-2017-why-you-should-keep-a-close-eye-on-the-net-neutrality-debate-in-the-us</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminNet NeutralityInternet Governance2018-01-18T14:50:52ZNews ItemIndian activists slam FCC decision to ditch net neutrality
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-kul-bhushan-november-23-2017-indian-activists-slam-fcc-decision-to-ditch-net-neutrality
<b>Indian net neutrality activists are assured the ongoing net neutrality tussle in the US will have no impact on India.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Kul Bhushan was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/indian-activists-slam-fcc-decision-to-ditch-net-neutrality/story-PR7PxLNeqyGiDqSbgTLHWK.html">Hindustan Times</a> on November 23, 2017.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Net neutrality is in the news again. This time it is because the US’ Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has decided to formally scrap existing protections that are meant to keep access to internet equitable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India had its own tryst with the idea of net neutrality after it <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/trai-s-says-no-to-content-based-differential-tariff-offers-supports-net-neutrality/story-1pOAI14aHvXYRu3AQNzMjP.html">blocked</a> the zero-rating programmes by social networking giant Facebook — which proposed to rollout the Internet.org or Free Basics project in February last year.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A powerful social media campaign made Facebook back down and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to announce that ‘<a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/trai-s-says-no-to-content-based-differential-tariff-offers-supports-net-neutrality/story-1pOAI14aHvXYRu3AQNzMjP.html">differential pricing</a>’ — a practice where some services or sites are priced in a special manner — will no longer be allowed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some people who were at the forefront of the net neutrality campaign in here almost three years ago have expressed their displeasure over the FCC’s move.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I think the approach the FCC is taking is flawed. Spectrum is a public resource and it needs to be spent on maximisation of public good. That public good, and the utility of the Internet is based on the freedom that people have to create new apps and services, without needing permission from ISPs, or the fear that ISPs might discriminate against them or favour their competitors. This is what net neutrality enables,” said Nikhil Pahwa, founder of publication Medianama and one of the activists.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“By going against Net Neutrality, FCC chairman Ajit Pai is attacking the core of what makes the Internet tick. We didn’t let that happen in India, and instead, focused on increasing competition between ISPs and telecom operators, because of which we’ve see broadband prices drop, quality of service improve, a tremendous growth in Internet users in India. For this, we owe a great debt to all those who supported Net Neutrality, especially the TRAI,” he added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Apar Gupta, who is closely associated with the ‘Save the Internet’ initiative and is the co-founder of Internet Freedom Foundation, said, “FCC’s move to take back the internet order is a huge setback to the global campaign to ensure open internet because it undermines the net neutrality.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I don’t think the development should impact the regulatory process in India considering TRAI’s strong support for net neutrality. I hope that TRAI comes out with a comprehensive network neutrality regulation in the future,” he responded when asked about the possible impact on India of the FCC move.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organisation Centre for Internet and Society, said there should be no impact on India from the FCC move.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He also slammed FCC chief Pai’s attempt to change the existing net neutrality rules. “What Ajit Pai is trying to do he’s not saying he will not regulate. He is saying when companies violate net neutrality principles they should be transparent about it. He hopes the magic of market competition will help resolve the problem,” he said</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Pai’s approach to the net neutrality might work in a market where there is a lot of competition. In the US, there is no competition and that in case damage will be immediate,” he added.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-kul-bhushan-november-23-2017-indian-activists-slam-fcc-decision-to-ditch-net-neutrality'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-kul-bhushan-november-23-2017-indian-activists-slam-fcc-decision-to-ditch-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminNet NeutralityInternet Governance2017-12-18T15:27:04ZNews ItemNet Neutrality Resources
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality-resources
<b>Submissions by the Centre for Internet and Society to TRAI and DoT, 2015-2017.</b>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2015-06-29_PositionPaperonNetNeutralityinIndia" class="external-link">Submission for TRAI Consultation on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top Services</a> (June 29, 2015)</li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2016-01-07_cis_trai-submission_differential-pricing" class="external-link">Submission to TRAI Consultation on Differential Pricing</a> (January 7, 2016)</li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2016-01-14_cis_trai-counter-comments_differential-pricing" class="external-link">Counter Comments to TRAI on Differential Pricing</a> (January 14, 2016)</li>
<li><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/trai-consultation-on-differential-pricing-for-data-services-post-open-house-discussion-submission" class="external-link">TRAI Consultation on Differential Pricing for Data Services: Post-Open House Discussion Submission</a> (January 25, 2016)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-trai-consultation-free-data">Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data</a> (June 30, 2016)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-to-trai-consultation-on-proliferation-of-broadband-through-public-wifi-networks">Submission to TRAI Consultation on Proliferation of Broadband through Public WiFi Networks</a> (August 28, 2016)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-trai-note-on-interoperable-scalable-public-wifi">Submission to TRAI Consultation Note on Model for Nation-wide Interoperable and Scalable Public Wi-Fi Networks</a> (December 12, 2016)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/cis-trai-submission-on-net-neutrality">Submission to TRAI Consultation on Net Neutrality</a> (April 18, 2017)</li></ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality-resources'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality-resources</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFeaturedHomepageNet NeutralityInternet Governance2017-04-22T09:11:21ZPageSurveillance in India: Policy and Practice
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/surveillance-in-india-policy-and-practice
<b>The National Institute of Public Finance and Policy organized a brainstorming session on net neutrality on February 8, 2017 and a public seminar on surveillance in India the following day on February 9, 2017 in New Delhi. Pranesh Prakash gave a talk. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh presented a narrative of the current state of surveillance law, our knowledge of current surveillance practices (including noting where programmes like Natgrid, CMS, etc. fit in), and charted a rough map of reforms needed and outstanding policy research questions.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash is a Policy Director at - and was part of the founding team of - the Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit organisation that engages in research and policy advocacy. He is also the Legal Lead at Creative Commons India and an Affiliated Fellow at the Yale Law School's Information Society Project, and has been on the Executive Committee of the NCUC at ICANN. In 2014, he was selected by Forbes India for its inaugural "30 under 30" list of young achievers, and in 2012 he was recognized as an Internet Freedom Fellow by the U.S. government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">His research interests converge at the intersections of technology, culture, economics, law, and justice. His current work focuses on interrogating, promoting, and engaging with policymakers on the areas of access to knowledge (primarily copyright reform), 'openness' (including open government data, open standards, free/libre/open source software, and open access), freedom of expression, privacy, digital security, and Internet governance. He is a prominent voice on these issues, with the newspaper Mint calling him “one of the clearest thinkers in this area”, and his research having been quoted in the Indian parliament. He regularly speaks at national and international conferences on these topics. He has a degree in arts and law from the National Law School in Bangalore, and while there he helped found the Indian Journal of Law and Technology, and was part of its editorial board for two years.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/workshop-on-net-neutrality">Click here</a> to see the agenda for the brainstorming session on net neutrality.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Video <br /> <iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6KfyQ7y6TNE" width="560"></iframe></h3>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/surveillance-in-india-policy-and-practice'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/surveillance-in-india-policy-and-practice</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaVideoNet NeutralityInternet GovernanceSurveillance2017-03-15T01:05:07ZNews ItemMobilizing Online Consensus: Net Neutrality and the India Subreddit
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/blog_mobilizing-online-consensus-net-neutrality-and-the-india-subreddit
<b>This essay by Sujeet George is part of the 'Studying Internet in India' series. The author offers a preliminary gesture towards understanding reddit’s usage and breadth in the Indian context. Through an analysis of the “India” subreddit and examining the manner and context in which information and ideas are shared, proposed, and debunked, the paper aspires to formulate a methodology for interrogating sites like reddit that offer the possibilities of social mediation, even as users maintain a limited amount of privacy. At the same time, to what extent can such news aggregator sites direct the ways in which opinions and news flows change course as a true marker of information generation responding to user inputs.</b>
<p> </p>
<h3><strong>Introduction</strong></h3>
<p>It is almost an Internet truism that the comments section on any website is the cesspool that festers the basest of human instincts. Insults and abuses abound, users ‘call out’ each other’s opinions, their choice of words and, on a <del>bad</del> regular day, even each other’s parentage. The spectre of online anonymity, it has been suggested, affords the possibility of channelling opinion without being accountable for it. This is the more cynical outlook on how online opinion forums function; a viewpoint which although credible is limited as it sidelines the more engaging aspects of these forums. Such an interface dynamic has historically offered two modes of checks and balances: the original content to which users commented on was determined (and often written) by the administrators of the website, and in many cases the comments were moderated by those who ran the website.</p>
<p>Social news websites in the age of Web 2.0 have radically altered the means of production of content. By handing over to web-users the keys to the content generation storehouse, news aggregator websites like 4chan and Reddit have supposedly democratized the volume and direction of news flow. Users create (and recycle) content on which other users comment and add more content through memes, sharing of links, pictures and videos. Somewhere along the line, the original post (op) may trigger more specific discussions.</p>
<p>The content generated on a news aggregating website like Reddit can thus, theoretically, range across a broad spectrum. From discussions on current technology and sharing of world news to more specific conversations on gardening or anime, the website brings together diverse interests under a singular platform. Topic-based posts and discussions are categorised into subreddits, subcommunities which converge around similar interests. Thus, a subreddit like /r/cricket may serve as a platform for cricket enthusiasts to share news and views on the game. These subreddits together constitute Reddit as a whole. Only registered users can post submissions or comment on other posts, although unregistered users can access the submissions without being able to comment on them. Registered users can upvote and downvote both the posts submitted and the comments posted by other users.</p>
<p>Any registered Reddit user can create a subreddit to initiate submissions and discussions on a particular area of interest. Reddit has a series of default subreddits, including /r/AskReddit, /r/books, /r/history among others. When an unregistered user accesses the website they are likely to see the current top-voted posts from a combination of the default subreddits. The voting system is inextricably linked to visibility: the more the upvotes a post receives, the more likely it is to be top of the list on the self-proclaimed front page of the internet. The posts are thus sorted as a combination of top-voted submissions from an assortment of default subreddits. Comments on specific posts also follow a similar voting logic whereby users can upvote/downvote a specific comment based on how useful or relevant they find it to the original post. Registered users can curate their own page by subscribing to subreddits of their own interest, and unsubscribing from the default ones.</p>
<p>Being a registered user entails choosing a username under which a user’s submissions and comments are collated. Every user comment receives an aggregate score which is the sum of the upvotes and downvotes the comment has received. The cumulative comment scores for every user, called karma, is visible to every other user, and is often an indicator of the level of (in)activity of a specific user. Karma scores are the veritable fiat currency of the reddit space, with prolific users being visible on multiple popular threads attempting to scale their karma aggregate through comments that employ a combination of wit, hyperbole, cliché and outrage.</p>
<p>Reddit with its two-way dynamism—the users are the creators of content and the very people who comment on it—seemingly throws open the spectrum for content to be self-generated and moderated. Every subreddit has a set of moderators who attempt to maintain a modicum of direction amidst the chaos. Moderators are often users who are active on that particular subreddit, or have volunteered (or have been chosen by the subreddit community) to take up the task of maintaining the decorum and coherence of the subreddit. Reddit’s voting system, where users upvote and downvote submitted content, purports to ensure that the cream can constantly float above the morass. The infrastructural logic of Reddit—an algorithm that ensures that posts do not stagnate on the front page and get regularly refreshed by newer content—seeks to instill a participatory ethos where content created/submitted by users gains traction based on the extent of discussion that it generates among other users <strong>[1]</strong>.</p>
<p>A characteristic of the reddit platform is the Ask Me Anything feature where notable individuals set a pre-determined time slot to answer questions raised by users of a subreddit community. The AMA format offers an interesting take on the possibilities of public engagement and publicity in the virtual domain. A unique feature of reddit, the popular AMAs are held on the default /r/IAMA subreddit. The earliest AMAs were coordinated by the founders as well as employees of the website; to an extent this is true even today although in recent times the public relations team of various celebrities have coordinated AMAs for their clients. It remains one of the most popular modes of user engagement, ironically functioning through external, mediated mechanisms. Most AMAs serve a dual purpose: celebrities offer to answer questions when they are ‘in the news’ or when they wish to publicize a new venture, which also serves as an endorsement of the popularity of the reddit platform in reaching out to a wide, primarily North American, audience. An early instance of an acknowledgement of the reach of the reddit platform was an AMA conducted by/for Barack Obama as he sought to be re-elected during the 2012 U.S. Presidential elections. Other notable ‘celebrity’ AMA sessions include those by Bill Gates, Madonna, and Edward Snowden. While celebrity AMAs remain a popular feature, the AMA format itself is utilised even by relatively less established personalities who have their own unique story to share. While /r/IAMA remains the default subreddit used to reach out to the reddit community, specific subreddits often conduct their own AMAs with personalities relevant to the group.</p>
<p>The India subreddit /r/India, the forum for content “directly about India and Indians,” has been a part of Reddit since 2008. At the time of writing this essay there are over 55000 registered Reddit users (including this writer) who subscribe to submissions posted on /r/India. Of course, there may be many more who ‘lurk’ around, a term for those who may not have subscribed but view submissions posted on the subreddit by visiting the subreddit page. /r/India typically draws in over 2 million page views every month. Over time the community has developed a vocabulary of its own, which is often self-referential and draws on submissions and comments that have been made at an earlier time. Many prolific users with characteristic usernames are recognized by fellow users, the sociality perhaps further strengthened through the annual city-based meet-ups that are planned as part of a larger Reddit tradition.</p>
<p>This essay looks at the mobilization of community opinion on /r/India on the issue of net neutrality, the efforts made by some of the users to raise awareness about it, and the ways in which the community responded and reacted to a wider online movement that sought to maintain a more egalitarian approach to Internet access and availability. Drawing on an analysis of a few posts submitted during a period that witnessed a flurry of activity in connection with the debates around net neutrality in India, the essay attempts to sketch out the contours of the debate around the axis of online activity and participation. It seeks to ponder on the extent to which a forum like the India subreddit offers the possibilities of a civic participation, of mobilizing public opinion and contributing to the decisions undertaken by policy makers. How do purportedly diverse online communities interact, draw consensus and stake a claim to the decision-making processes that involve multiple stakeholders often with conflicting interests?</p>
<h3><strong>The Social in the Virtual Rear-view Mirror</strong></h3>
<p>The form of any subreddit, with its defined purpose and rules of submission, ensures a certain coherence even amidst the cornucopia of memes, images and other web links that may be shared and commented upon. The governing logic of a particular subreddit accords it a certain hue, which most users attempt to conform to or occasionally subvert. The specificity of any subreddit, thus, is a mutually constitutive process where the original tech-interface guidelines are negotiated by the content submitted by users of the subreddit.</p>
<img src="https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/img/cis-raw_blog_sujeet-george_01.jpeg" alt="Tragedy of India" />
<h6>Source: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/4s5bpn/tragedy_of_india/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/4s5bpn/tragedy_of_india/</a>.</h6>
<p>User behaviour on new media platforms can be understood as a virtual manifestation of traits that are exhibited in the domain of the social in real life. Consider the discussion sparked off by a post that was submitted about 4 weeks back, and which has catapulted to the top of the all time top voted submissions on the subreddit <strong>[2]</strong>. It contrasts the shoddy construction by the Maharashtra government in 2013 of a section of a fort staircase, with the more stable lasting section built by Shivaji in the 17th century. The user who posted the image commented on the dubious nature of infrastructural work in the present day, blaming corruption for the disparity in the quality of work. Juxtaposing historical nostalgia with an apathy about the present state-of-affairs, the comments and discussions around the post veered from questions of the feasibility of implementing older construction methods, to the widespread nepotism and corruption prevalent in public work contracts in the present day. One user remarked, “I'm guessing Shivaji didn't hand out the contracts for building his forts to the lowest bidder.” Another chimed in that “[no] tender is clean. It's often created, mapped, prepared and executed by the company and middleman willing to shell out the most to the bureaucrats and politicians.”</p>
<p>A popular motif on many submissions on /r/India is a lamentation on the tangled mess between the bureaucracy and legislature. It extends the generic urban middle class antipathy towards governance and its deep suspicion of the probity of the administrative processes of the Indian State. One user-comment tried to explain the popularity of the submitted post—a common indicator of content popularity on Reddit is the number of upvotes it receives and the extent of user participation through comments—to the highly ‘relatable’ nature of the submission.</p>
<p>The character of an online forum, while being shaped by diverse user behaviour, is invariably crystallized by the more dominant modes of representation. The anonymity afforded by the online medium and the potential infinitude of the range of submissions should theoretically stretch the spectrum of representations. Yet user behaviour often conforms in a bid to confirm its own shared identity within the group. What is then understood as relatable is not necessarily a universal, but merely an accommodation of difference through consensus. In the following sections I attempt to make sense of the processes through which such a consensus is drawn by considering the trajectory of discussions on posts pertaining to debates on net neutrality <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>
<h3><strong>The Anatomy of an Online Mobilization</strong></h3>
<p>The discussions around questions of net neutrality, Facebook’s Free Basics, differential data pricing, and restricted access to OTT services have captured the Indian public imagination in the last 18-odd months. Multiple consultation papers shared by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) have served as a rallying point for domain experts, media policy analysts and the general public. The series of consultation papers and the questions that have arisen over specific practices of telecom companies are imagined through the essay as a single event punctuated by temporal fissures. It has its own prehistory, a call to arms, and the eventual (fleeting) redemption. The differing discourse around the issue is contextually singular even if separated by chronology.</p>
<p>On February 8 this year, an /r/India user shared a news report about TRAI declaring zero-rated products as illegal <strong>[4]</strong>. Months of collaboration among faceless internet users had managed a key victory in what was repeatedly termed a battle to save the Internet. User comments highlighted the scale of the task accomplished as “a bunch of folks on the Internet [stopped] a $300 billion market cap corporation [Facebook] and a bunch of telecoms with strong lobbying capabilities.” Some users could not see past the irony of the Internet itself serving as a means for the public to halt rapacious tech companies in their stride. The David v/s Goliath analogy seemed apt. The task, though, had just begun, as one user presciently noted: “Mobilizing people is hard. Mobilizing people against a better funded lobby, and on a dry technical topic ? really hard. We are probably going to need a dedicated NGO, mailing lists, donations and members for this and similar issues.”</p>
<p>The debates surrounding net neutrality have sparked a diverse range of questions related to Internet access, differential pricing, restraints on technology, impediments to freedom of expression and questions of consumer choice. The range of issues and stakeholders encompassed within the policy regulation has simultaneously atomised and collectivised the problematic of Internet. As an increasingly everyday technology for many urban Indians, Internet usage has carried the possibility of innovative and easy access to a range of services and information while circumventing hitherto static structures of the administrative machinery. Internet usage in the Indian context can be regarded as both a symbol of egalitarianism and privilege; a conflation of the larger ideal of enterprise espoused by the technological boom and a reluctantly understated reflection of the very technology being of limited wider accessibility. The debates on Internet usage through the very medium thus contains some of the tensions that were echoed in the responses to the questions on net neutrality that were raised on the Indian subreddit.</p>
<p>These debates, circulating across news mediums both print and digital, found their way into the /r/India cosmos through efforts to raise awareness about the issue and to bring about a greater collective bargaining momentum to the efforts in the digital space. A post on December 25, 2014 announced the efforts being undertaken by various media practitioners through the creation of the website <a href="http://netneutrality.in/">http://netneutrality.in/</a> which later became <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.in/">http://www.savetheinternet.in/</a> <strong>[5]</strong>. As a submission in the early life of the net neutrality event the post garnered enough attention to find its way into the vocabulary of the subreddit.</p>
<p>It was, however, not until three months later that perhaps the most comprehensive early exhortation came through a post titled Let's fight for Net Neutrality before it becomes necessary. E-Mail the TRAI now <strong>[6]</strong>. submitted on March 28, 2015 by one of the subreddit moderators. The post called for users to mail the TRAI and join in the efforts to influence upon policy makers on the need for a neutral Internet. User comments ranged from a creating email templates to a brief primer on the meaning and scope of net neutrality. That the public counter fight was still in the planning stage is evident in the numerous user comments volunteering to craft an email template to be sent.</p>
<p>The possibilities of a collaborative enterprise were much more evident in another mod-post, submitted on April 8, 2015 titled <em>Fight for Net Neutrality: The way forward</em> <strong>[7]</strong>. The post assembled the increasing momentum that the net neutrality movement had garnered in the Indian virtual space. Varying email templates to be shared among peer groups were presented, enterprising users created memes and infographics, while more sinister minds listed out companies that openly flouted net neutrality rules. The aim was not just to organise, but to also synchronize the efforts of a purportedly disparate group of users.</p>
<p>Even as user efforts were directed towards raising awareness about net neutrality among a wider audience, the sheer scale of the task and improbable hurdles on the road where highlighted by some. One post speculated on the connection between the timing of TRAI’s consultation paper and the fact that the Director of TRAI was due to retire in May 2015 <strong>[8]</strong>. The user feared that “the decision on TRAI proposal has already been made. The public is asked to comment on the OTT proposal because it is required by norm (not sure about law). They are waiting for Mr Khullar to retire, so they can blame him for the colossal backlash that will happen when the proposal is ratified.”</p>
<p>In the next few months the momentum of the movement ebbed and flowed, with diligent users posting regular updates on the progress. Even as the Internet rights discourse on the forum sought to be balanced with the logic of the market, there emerged a series of reactionary submissions that seemed to combine a distrust of large telecoms with the emancipatory spirit of a virtual civil disobedience.</p>
<h3><strong>Zero Rating the Zero-Rated Apps</strong></h3>
<p>Concurrent with the efforts at the level of governance, /r/India users employed creative means to show their displeasure towards companies who seemed to oppose the tenets of net neutrality. One such instance was when a user galvanised forum opinion to down-rate the Flipkart and Airtel apps on their phones. Flipkart CEO Sachin Bansal’s justification for zero-rated apps as sound business practice was turned inside-out as users gave a zero rating to the Flipkart app on their phones. The impact was ostensibly evident as the daily average ratings for the app saw a sharp fall <strong>[9]</strong>.</p>
<p>Diatribes against telecom companies and their profit-driven enterprise have now become a regular feature on the forum. The mobile network Airtel, which has been at the forefront of the anti-net neutrality lobby, has faced its share of the community ire. Branded Chortel—an (un)imaginative coinage characterizing the supposed thieving policies of the company—the company along with Flipkart has been subject to a series of memes that invoke ridicule and hint at the sense of disconnect between consumers and the products on offer. The image shown above contrasts a popular biscuit brand Parle-G with the recently launched Airtel 4G Internet <strong>[10]</strong>. It employs Parle’s long unblemished reputation as a brand of reliability; its iconicity a signifier of a purported business of ethics that feels anachronistic in comparison to the business practices of the telecom companies.</p>
<img src="https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/img/cis-raw_blog_sujeet-george_02.jpeg" alt="Chortel Four-G" />
<h6>Source: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3r25gr/chortel_four_g/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3r25gr/chortel_four_g/</a>.</h6>
<p>The movement to generate awareness about Internet policy also sought to initiate dialogues with administrators who are in a position to ensure that the community’s voices are heard. Thus Independent Rajya Sabha member Rajeev Chandrasekhar did an AMA at the height of the net neutrality discussions <strong>[11]</strong>. Since the person doing the AMA can choose to answer or ignore from the range of questions posed by the community, the supposed mutuality of participation is often minimal. Nevertheless, Chandrasekhar’s AMA not just points to the interactive (propagandist) possibilities of reddit or any other social media platform but it also asserts the relevance of the medium as a significant domain where policy regulation impacts people whose voices need to be acknowledged. As an entrepreneur who has previously worked in the technology sector, Chandrasekhar symbolizes /r/India’s imagined ideal scenario of a ‘rule of experts’ in matters of governance. That a sitting MP would seek a dialogue with an online forum also hints at the relevance of such mobilizations, where enterprising tech-savvy politicians understand the potential to stir public action through the domain of the virtual.</p>
<h3><strong>Consensus in/and New Media</strong></h3>
<p>At one level, it could be suggested that the discussions which emerged on the India subreddit around the debates on net neutrality hint at the potentials of virtual mobilization of the public. Social media, the Internet and social networking forums like Reddit could potentially widen the level of information access and dissemination where the early groundwork has been laid by the RTI Act. But at stake in the whole discussion is not merely the extent to which an online community can modify the direction of a policy discourse. Even as the development of a ‘networked public sphere’ has transformed the means of consensus building, the elements of its discontent are difficult to ignore. The formation of a public sphere in a virtual environment presents the possibilities of conformity as much as of consensus.</p>
<p>The discourse around net neutrality on /r/India forum is notable for the wide-ranging consensus that it managed to appropriate from the community. Such a consensus could be interpreted in at least two ways. The form of any subreddit as a forum for all things related to a specific context—be it a common activity, nationality, gender identity—contains within itself the language of adequate acceptance and rebuttal. At the same time, the algorithmic technique of determining the visibility of a post through upvotes and downvotes renders real the possibility of consensus through conformity.</p>
<p>It is more interesting to look beyond the veneer of consensus and question the supposed diversity of the group and its implications, rather than infer collective action as a signifier of the rightness of the action. One could suggest that the terms of the debate, of limiting the control that mega-telecos wield over internet policy in India, offered an easy medium to galvanise opinion on the subreddit. Any nuanced stance will however need to read collective action in relation to the (im)possibility of individual opinion-making in a structured environment of an online forum.</p>
<p>An online platform with a voting system linked to visibility offers a peculiar type of consensus. A majority of the top-voted submissions and comments pertaining to the net neutrality debate on /r/India fall within a broad overlap of consensus linked to a participatory, egalitarian technological ethos which is characteristic of the post-liberalization Indian milieu. The possibility of dissent, or even voicing differing viewpoints, is structured in a limited spectrum since what will be shared/read is inextricably linked to what users understand as acceptable within the forum. Such an understanding can inadvertently suggest a consensus, or worse offer a monochromatic presentation of an issue. This is not to discount the possibility of informed discussion, or exaggerate the ‘hive mind’ of reddit. But the link between visibility and popularity of content often ensures that the nuances of a debate get sidelined and unidimensional. Thus, even though aspects of differential pricing may be understood as a means to wider access, or as a way to open Internet services to the vagaries of the market rather than State whims, such viewpoints find less credibility when articulated within a forum like /r/India <strong>[12]</strong>. While discussions may emerge which consider the issue beyond the limited rhetoric of free speech and consumer choice, they often get presented in the ‘anti net neutrality’ garb or as afterthoughts to a debate the terms of which have ostensibly been settled <strong>[13]</strong>.</p>
<p>Communicative technologies, as Lisa Gitelman notes, often converge around an overlapping mental landscape that seeks to make sense of an act/event through synchronized ontologies of representation. Consensus in such an instance is not to be seen as a final validation of the community’s stance on an issue. It should prompt us to be wary of the pitfalls of online mobilization that could be travelling in an echo chamber. The task then would not be to debunk actions drawn on consensus, but to be aware of the limits of inclusivity of such online forums <strong>[14]</strong>.
Further research has to consider ways in which individual users negotiate the possibility of presenting an individual stance to the community within interface-induced limitations to the possibility of such an enunciation. This would involve interviews with a pool of /r/India users, examine the types of news outlets and viewpoints that gain credence within the community, look at voting patterns, and perhaps undertake a more thorough examination of a wider range of concerns relevant to the community. This essay has attempted a preliminary gesture towards such an endeavour by picking a particular event and the community’s response to it. Reddit, in contrast to Facebook for instance, offers the possibility of peering into an online space where anonymity commingles with community enterprise and the meaning of accountability is extended beyond individual motive of mere sociality or recognition. As such, it could potentially offer an understanding of online behaviour beyond the limits of the individual-liberal paradigm of action orientation and widen the debate on the functioning of social news websites by being acutely aware of the thin line between the individual and the social.</p>
<h3><strong>Disclaimer</strong></h3>
<p>The writer has been a frequent lurker on Reddit, and the India subreddit since 2011. Beyond voraciously consuming the submissions on /r/India he does not claim to have contributed in any meaningful manner to the online discussions referred to in the essay.</p>
<h3><strong>Endnotes</strong></h3>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> The literature on reddit is a fast growing domain, with innovative research looking at Reddit’s voting patterns, user behaviour, and news outlets linked to glean an understanding of the news aggregating website. For an examination of questions of identity and anonymity on Reddit see, Shelton, M., Lo, K., Nardi, B. (2015). Online Media Forums as Separate Social Lives: A Qualitative Study of Disclosure Within and Beyond Reddit. In iConference 2015 Proceedings. For an engagement with questions on what motivates Reddit user to contribute see, Bogers, T., & Nordenhoff Wernersen, R. (2014). How 'Social' are Social News Sites? Exploring the Motivations for Using Reddit.com. In Proceedings of the iConference 2014. (pp. 329-344). IDEALS: iSchools.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/4s5bpn/tragedy_of_india/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/4s5bpn/tragedy_of_india/</a>. Last accessed on August 2, 2016. Unless stated otherwise, all links posted hereafter have also been accessed on the same day.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> My understanding of social media and the social dimension of new media has been shaped from my reading of Dijck, José Van. <em>The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media</em>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. For an examination of social media practices see, Ellison, N. B. & boyd, d. (2013). Sociality through Social Network Sites. In Dutton, W. H. (Ed.), <em>The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies</em>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 151–172.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> See: <a>https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/44qddb/trai_to_make_zero_rated_products_illegal/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/2qcvhp/i_created_a_site_to_educate_people_about_airtel/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/2qcvhp/i_created_a_site_to_educate_people_about_airtel/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/30lz1p/lets_fight_for_net_neutrality_before_it_becomes/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/30lz1p/lets_fight_for_net_neutrality_before_it_becomes/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31vvf2/fight_for_net_neutrality_the_way_forward/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31vvf2/fight_for_net_neutrality_the_way_forward/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/322iv8/trai_asking_for_feedback_on_their_proposal_is_a/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/322iv8/trai_asking_for_feedback_on_their_proposal_is_a/</a>. For Kullar’s own views on the issue, see: <a href="http://thewire.in/1624/lets-be-practical-about-net-neutrality/">http://thewire.in/1624/lets-be-practical-about-net-neutrality/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[9]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31ykxj/flipkart_and_airtel_are_fucking_with_your/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31ykxj/flipkart_and_airtel_are_fucking_with_your/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[10]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3r25gr/chortel_four_g/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3r25gr/chortel_four_g/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[11]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/387req/hi_rindia_i_am_rajeev_chandrasekhar_member_of/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/387req/hi_rindia_i_am_rajeev_chandrasekhar_member_of/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[12]</strong> CIS’s note on its position on net neutrality points to the multilayered nature of the policy: <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality'>http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality</a>. Last accessed on September 9, 2016. For a contrarian voice, see: <a href=">http://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html</a>. Last accessed on September 9, 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[13]</strong> Consider the discussions that emerged in two separate posts: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31peb4/lets_respond_to_this_anti_net_neutrality_piece/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31peb4/lets_respond_to_this_anti_net_neutrality_piece/</a> and <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/336u8f/woke_up_to_this_pro_internetorg_article_in/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/336u8f/woke_up_to_this_pro_internetorg_article_in/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[14]</strong> Gitelman, Lisa. <em>Always Already New: Media, History and the Data of Culture</em>. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006. Especially chapter 3.</p>
<h3><strong>Author Profile</strong></h3>
<p>Sujeet George has an M.Phil from the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta. His research interests are in histories of science and commodities, and new media and digital humanities. He has previously worked with the Mumbai City Museum and The Southasia Trust.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/blog_mobilizing-online-consensus-net-neutrality-and-the-india-subreddit'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/blog_mobilizing-online-consensus-net-neutrality-and-the-india-subreddit</a>
</p>
No publisherSujeet GeorgeRedditInternet StudiesRAW BlogNet NeutralityResearchers at Work2016-09-27T04:52:35ZBlog EntryResponses to Trai’s consultation paper on free data contain some good suggestions
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/first-post-tech-2-august-15-2016-asheeta-regidi-responses-to-trai-consultation-paper-on-free-data-contain-some-good-suggestions
<b>Trai has announced that it will come up with a final consultation paper on ‘Free Data’, and also a pre-consultation paper on Net Neutrality by the end of this month.</b>
<p>The blog post by Asheeta Regidi was <a class="external-link" href="http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/responses-to-trais-consultation-paper-on-free-data-contain-some-good-suggestions-329846.html">published by FirstPost's Tech 2</a> on August 15, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/Content/ConDis/20773_0.aspx" rel="nofollow"><b>pre-consultation paper on Free Data</b></a> (the Consultation Paper), which was issued in May 2016, asked for options where free data could be provided for accessing certain websites or apps without violating the <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>Discriminatory Tariff Regulations</b></a> issued earlier in February. The objective of the paper is to maximise internet penetration, and make internet available even to the poorest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The models suggested in the Consultation Paper are a reward of free data for certain internet uses, zero data charges for accessing certain content, and refunding data charges in a manner similar to refund of LPG subsidies. These models are very similar to plans like <a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/how-trai-regulations-will-impact-existing-services-such-as-free-basics-airtel-zero-298486.html"><b>Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel Zero, which were banned</b></a> by the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While it is clear that Trai has no intention of withdrawing the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations, the Consultation Paper does appear to open up the doors to net neutrality violations again. Here’s a look at the comments and counter-comments that have come in response to this paper.</p>
<p><a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/free_basics_motorist2.jpg"><img alt="A motorist rides past a hoarding advertising Facebook's Free Basics. Image: Reuters" class="wp-image-329868 size-full" height="360" src="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/free_basics_motorist2.jpg" width="640" /></a></p>
<div class="prodtxtinf">A motorist rides past a hoarding advertising Facebook’s Free Basics. Image: Reuters</div>
<div class="prodtxtinf"></div>
<div class="prodtxtinf">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Large TSPs and TSP associations want content-based free data schemes</b><br /> The <a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/List_SP.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>response of large TSPs</b></a> like Vodafone, Idea and so on are quite predictable. They, alongwith most of the TSP associations such as ACTO, COAI and AUSPI, are in support of the idea of free access to certain sites. They, in fact, point out the similarities between the proposed models and the similar models brought out by them, such as Airtel’s One Touch Internet and Reliance’s Facebook Tap. They have also asked for a withdrawal of the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations, on the grounds that they hamper the innovation and forbearance capabilities of the TSPs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">They do, however, take issue with the fact that a TSP agnostic platform, or a platform which is completely independent of the TSPs, is to be given the power to decide how the lower prices or discounts are to be provided. They allege that there is nothing to prevent such a platform from acting as a gatekeeper in itself. They argue that TSPs are in a better position to perform this function, since they are subject to strict regulatory and licensing requirements from Trai.</p>
<a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/bengaluru_outsourcing.jpg"><img alt="Employees at an outsourcing centre in Bengaluru Image: Reuters" class="wp-image-329870 size-full" height="360" src="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/bengaluru_outsourcing.jpg" width="640" /></a>
<div class="prodtxtinf">Employees at an outsourcing centre in Bengaluru Image: Reuters</div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Smaller TSPs and other companies fear net neutrality violations</b><br /> Smaller TSPs like Atria, Citicom and MTS are against content based free data proposal, mostly on the grounds that the models suggested violate net neutrality. They point out that allowing content based free data in any form will give an unfair advantage to large TSPs and content providers. Smaller companies and start-ups will be left in the lurch since they will not have the financial capabilities to effectively compete with such schemes. These entities also share the fear of the TSPs that there is nothing to stop a TSP agnostic platform from also acting as a gatekeeper.</p>
<a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Mumbai_telecom.jpg"><img alt="Commuters with their smartphones in a Mumbai local. Image: Reuters" class="wp-image-321780" height="360" src="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Mumbai_telecom.jpg" width="640" /></a>
<div class="prodtxtinf">Commuters with their smartphones in a Mumbai local. Image: Reuters</div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Some alternative suggestions for free data schemes which do not violate net neutrality</b><br /> The approach suggested by Trai will, to a large extent, only benefit existing users of the internet, since a basic internet access of some sort is required before the users can enjoy the benefits of a rewards or a refund. Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), in its comments, points to research that found that only 12 percent of the users of zero rating services abroad (no data charges for certain websites), started using it because of the zero rating. Clearly, these schemes are not achieving the objective of increasing internet usage, and an alternative solution is required.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many of the responses came up with alternative suggestions for free data schemes which can increase internet usage without violating net neutrality. Some of these suggestions are listed below:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>The <a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/Companies_n_Organizations/Digital_Empowerment_Foundation.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>Digital Empowerment Foundation</b></a> suggests the provision of free data quotas or packs, which would give a limited amount of data free of charge to all consumers. Any data usage above the basic pack will be charged at normal rates. It also suggests making such packs mandatory as a part of the TSP licensing terms or alternatively subsidising the cost of these packs through other benefits to the TSPs.</li>
<li><a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/TSP/Sistema_Shyam_Teleservices_Ltd.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>MTS</b></a> suggests that content providers be allowed free internet access for a limited time or quantity, such as 30 minutes per day, or 100MB per day, to certain groups, like low income groups.</li>
<li><a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/Companies_n_Organizations/Mozilla.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>Mozilla</b></a> and <a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/Companies_n_Organizations/Software_Freedom_Law_Center.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>SFLC</b></a> suggest the ‘equal rating’ system, where a small amount of data per day is made available free of charge to all internet users, over and above whatever other packs they may have purchased.</li>
<li>The <a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/Companies_n_Organizations/Center_For_Internet_and_Society.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>Centre for Internet and Society</b></a> suggests that the government allow TSPs to provide free internet to all, at a lower speed, and in return exempt the TSPs from the USO contributions in their license fees. This will ensure free data to all without differentiating based on content.</li>
<li>SFLC also suggests an increase in free public Wi-Fi hotspots, like the kind being made available in Indian railway stations, to increase internet accessibility without content-based discrimination.</li>
<li><a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/TSP/MTNL.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>MTNL</b></a> suggests that if content-based free data is to be allowed, the government should determine what constitutes the basic services to be allowed for free, such as railway booking services, and not leave this to the understanding of the TSPs.</li>
<li>MTS also suggests that content providers be allowed to give data-based rewards for certain activity, such as watching associated advertisements.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/TSP/Atria_Convergence.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>Atria</b></a> suggests that if free data is to be allowed, first establish a negative list of what cannot be done, such as no throttling of speeds.</li>
</ul>
<a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/anonymous_internet_censorship_protest.jpg"><img alt="Anonymous protests against Internet laws in Mumbai. Image: Reuters" class="wp-image-329869 size-full" height="360" src="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/anonymous_internet_censorship_protest.jpg" width="640" /></a>
<div class="prodtxtinf" style="text-align: justify; ">Anonymous protests against Internet laws in Mumbai. Image: Reuters</div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>First establish ground rules of net neturality</b><br /> One common aspect of most of the comments to the Consultation Paper was the confusion regarding Trai’s stance on net neutrality. Many entities, including the large TSPs, pointed out the contradiction between this Consultation Paper and the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This paper gives the impression that the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations were issued not to prevent content based discrimination, but to prevent telecom service providers from becoming ‘gatekeepers’. In reality, that is not the main fear of the people, but the fear that net neutrality will be affected. The culprits might be anyone, whether it is the TSP, the content provider or the TSP agnostic platform suggested by Trai. It needs to modify its approach, and first lay down the fundamental rules on net neutrality. Any other regulations must first comply with these rules.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the motives of Trai are laudible, it is hoped that Trai will look into the several suggestions made that will achieve the dual targets of maximum internet penetration as well as securing net neutrality.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/first-post-tech-2-august-15-2016-asheeta-regidi-responses-to-trai-consultation-paper-on-free-data-contain-some-good-suggestions'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/first-post-tech-2-august-15-2016-asheeta-regidi-responses-to-trai-consultation-paper-on-free-data-contain-some-good-suggestions</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaTRAINet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-08-17T03:05:57ZNews ItemMeeting on Net Neutrality and Related Issues
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/meeting-on-net-neutrality-and-related-issues
<b>A meeting was convened by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on July 15, 2016 in New Delhi to discuss Net Neutrality and related issues. Sunil Abraham attended this meeting. </b>
<p>Click to <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/trai-invitation-letter-to-discuss-net-neturality">view the Invitation Letter</a> sent by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/meeting-on-net-neutrality-and-related-issues'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/meeting-on-net-neutrality-and-related-issues</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-08-02T15:56:10ZNews ItemCIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-trai-consultation-free-data
<b>The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) held a consultation on Free Data, for which CIS sent in the following comments.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) asked for <a href="http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/CP_07_free_data_consultation.pdf">public comments on free data</a>. Below are the comments that CIS submitted to the four questions that it posed.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2 id="question-1">Question 1
<p><em>Is there a need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users, without violating the principles of Differential Pricing for Data laid down in TRAI Regulation? Please suggest the most suitable model to achieve the objective.</em></p>
</h2>
<h3 id="is-there-a-need-for-free-data">Is There a Need for Free Data?</h3>
<p>No, there is no <em>need</em> for free data, just as there is no <em>need</em> for telephony or Internet. However, making provisions for free data would increase the amount of innovation in the Internet and telecom sector, and there is a good probability that it would lead to faster adoption of the Internet, and thus be beneficial in terms of commerce, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and many other ways.</p>
<p>Thus the question that a telecom regulator should ask is not whether there is a <em>need</em> for TSP agnostic platforms, but whether such platforms are harmful for competition, for consumers, and for innovation. The telecom regulator ought not undertake regulation unless there is evidence to show that harm has been caused or that harm is likely to be caused. In short, TRAI should not follow the precautionary principle, since the telecom and Internet sectors are greatly divergent from environmental protection: the burden of proof for showing that something ought to be prohibited ought to be on those calling for prohibition.</p>
<h3 id="goal-regulating-gatekeeping">Goal: Regulating Gatekeeping</h3>
<p>TRAI wouldn’t need to regulate price discrimination or Net neutrality if ISPs were not “gatekeepers” for last-mile access. “Gatekeeping” occurs when a single entity establishes itself as an exclusive route to reach a large number of people and businesses or, in network terms, nodes. It is not possible for Internet services to reach their end customers without passing through ISPs (generally telecom networks). The situation is very different in the middle-mile and for backhaul. Even though anti-competitive terms may exist in the middle-mile, especially given the opacity of terms in “transit agreements”, a packet is usually able to travel through multiple routes if one route is too expensive (even if that is not the shortest network path, and is thus inefficient in a way). However, this multiplicity of routes is generally not possible in the last mile.<a id="fnref1" class="footnoteRef" href="#fn1"><sup>1</sup></a> This leaves last mile telecom operators (ISPs) in a position to unfairly discriminate between different Internet services or destinations or applications, while harming consumer choice.</p>
<p>However, the aim of regulation by TRAI cannot be to prevent gatekeeping, since that is not possible as long as there are a limited number of ISPs. For instance, even by the very act of charging money for access to the Internet, ISPs are guilty of “gatekeeping” since they are controlling who can and cannot access an Internet service that way. Instead, the aim of regulation by TRAI should be to “regulate gatekeepers to ensure they do not use their gatekeeping power to unjustly discriminate between similarly situated persons, content or traffic”, as we proposed in our submission to TRAI (on OTTs) last year.</p>
<h3 id="models-for-free-data">Models for Free Data</h3>
<p>There are multiple models possible for free data, none of which TRAI should prohibit unless it would enable OTTs to abuse their gatekeeping powers.</p>
<h4 id="government-incentives-for-non-differentiated-free-data">Government Incentives For Non-Differentiated Free Data</h4>
<p>The government may opt to require all ISPs to provide free Internet to all at a minimum QoS in exchange for exemption from paying part of their USO contributions, or the government may pay ISPs for such access using their USO contributions.</p>
<p>TRAI should recommend to DoT that it set up a committee to study the feasibility of this model.</p>
<h4 id="isp-subsidies">ISP subsidies</h4>
<p>ISP subsidies of Internet access only make economic sense for the ISP under the following ‘Goldilocks’ condition is met: the experience with the subsidised service is ‘good enough’ for the consumers to want to continue to use such services, but ‘bad enough’ for a large number of them to want to move to unsubsidised, paid access.</p>
<ol style="list-style-type: decimal;">
<li>Providing free Internet to all at a low speed.
<ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
<li>This naturally discriminates against services and applications such as video streaming, but does not technically bar access to them.</li></ol>
</li>
<li>Providing free access to the Internet with other restrictions on quality that aren’t discriminatory with respect to content, services, or applications.</li></ol>
<h4 id="rewards-model">Rewards model</h4>
<p>A TSP-agnostic rewards platform will only come within the scope of TRAI regulation if the platform has some form of agreement with the TSPs, even if it is collectively. If the rewards platform doesn’t have any agreement with any TSP, then TRAI does not have the power to regulate it. However, if the rewards platform has an agreement with any TSP, it is unclear whether it would be allowed under the Differential Data Tariff Regulation, since the clause 3(2) read with paragraph 30 of the Explanatory Memorandum might disallow such an agreement.</p>
<p>Assuming for the sake of argument that platforms with such agreements are not disallowed, such platforms can engage in either post-purchase credits or pre-purchase credits, or both. In other words, it could be a situation where a person has to purchase a data pack, engage in some activity relating to the platform (answer surveys, use particular apps, etc.) and thereupon get credit of some form transferred to one’s SIM, or it could be a situation where even without purchasing a data pack, a consumer can earn credits and thereupon use those credits towards data.</p>
<p>The former kind of rewards platform is not as useful when it comes to encouraging people to use the Internet, since only those who already see worth in using in the Internet (and can afford it) will purchase a data pack in the first place. The second form, on the other hand is quite useful, and could be encouraged. However, this second model is not as easily workable, economically, for fixed line connections, since there is a higher initial investment involved.</p>
<h4 id="recharge-api">Recharge API</h4>
<p>A recharge API could be fashioned in one of two ways: (1) via the operating system on the phone, allowing a TSP or third parties (whether OTTs or other intermediaries) to transfer credit to the SIM card on the phone which have been bought wholesale. Another model could be that of all TSPs providing a recharge API for the use of third parties. Only the second model is likely to result in a “toll-free” experience since in the first model, like in the case of a rewards platform that requires up-front purchase of data packs, there has to be a investment made first before that amount is recouped. This is likely to hamper the utility of such a model.</p>
<p>Further, in the first case, TRAI would probably not have the powers to regulate such transactions, as there would be no need for any involvement by the TSP. If anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominant position seems to be taking place, it would be up to the Competition Commission of India to investigate.</p>
<p>However, the second model would have to be overseen by TRAI to ensure that the recharge APIs don’t impose additional costs on OTTs, or unduly harm competition and innovation. For instance, there ought to be an open specification for such an API, which all the TSPs should use in order to reduce the costs on OTTs. Further, there should be no exclusivity, and no preferential treatment provided for the TSPs sister concerns or partners.</p>
<h4 id="example-sites">“0.example” sites</h4>
<p>Other forms of free data, for instance by TSPs choosing not to charge for low-bandwidth traffic should be allowed, as long as it is not discriminatory, nor does it impose increased barriers to entry for OTTs. For instance, if a website self-certifies that it is low-bandwidth and optimized for Internet-enabled feature phones and uses 0.example.tld to signal this (just as wap.* were used in for WAP sites and m.* are used for mobile-optimized versions of many sites), then there is no reason why TSPs should be prohibited from not charging for the data consumed by such websites, as long as the TSP does so uniformly without discrimination. In such cases, the TSP is not harming competition, harming consumers, nor abusing its gatekeeping powers.</p>
<h4 id="ott-agnostic-free-data">OTT-agnostic free data</h4>
<p>If a TSP decides not to charge for specific forms of traffic (for example, video, or for locally-peered traffic) regardless of the Internet service from which that traffic emanates, as as long as it does so with the end customer’s consent, then there is no question of the TSP harming competition, harming consumers, nor abusing its gatekeeping powers. There is no reason such schemes should be prohibited by TRAI unless they distort markets and harm innovation.</p>
<h4 id="unified-marketplace">Unified marketplace</h4>
<p>One other way to do what is proposed as the “recharge API” model is to create a highly-regulated market where the gatekeeping powers of the ISP are diminished, and the ISP’s ability to leverage its exclusive access over its customers are curtailed. A comparison may be drawn here to the rules that are often set by standard-setting bodies where patents are involved: given that these patents are essential inputs, access to them must be allowed through fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licences. Access to the Internet and common carriers like telecom networks, being even more important (since alternatives exist to particular standards, but not to the Internet itself), must be placed at an even higher pedestal and thus even stricter regulation to ensure fair competition.</p>
<p>A marketplace of this sort would impose some regulatory burdens on TRAI and place burdens on innovations by the ISPs, but a regulated marketplace harms ISP innovation less than not allowing a market at all.</p>
<p>At a minimum, such a marketplace must ensure non-exclusivity, non-discrimination, and transparency. Thus, at a minimum, a telecom provider cannot discriminate between any OTTs who want similar access to zero-rating. Further, a telecom provider cannot prevent any OTT from zero-rating with any other telecom provider. To ensure that telecom providers are actually following this stipulation, transparency is needed, as a minimum.</p>
<p>Transparency can take one of two forms: transparency to the regulator alone and transparency to the public. Transparency to the regulator alone would enable OTTs and ISPs to keep the terms of their commercial transactions secret from their competitors, but enable the regulator, upon request, to ensure that this doesn’t lead to anti-competitive practices. This model would increase the burden on the regulator, but would be more palatable to OTTs and ISPs, and more comparable to the wholesale data market where the terms of such agreements are strictly-guarded commercial secrets. On the other hand, requiring transparency to the public would reduce the burden on the regulator, despite coming at a cost of secrecy of commercial terms, and is far more preferable.</p>
<p>Beyond transparency, a regulation could take the form of insisting on standard rates and terms for all OTT players, with differential usage tiers if need be, to ensure that access is truly non-discriminatory. This is how the market is structured on the retail side.</p>
<p>Since there are transaction costs in individually approaching each telecom provider for such zero-rating, the market would greatly benefit from a single marketplace where OTTs can come and enter into agreements with multiple telecom providers.</p>
<p>Even in this model, telecom networks will be charging based not only on the fact of the number of customers they have, but on the basis of them having exclusive routing to those customers. Further, even under the standard-rates based single-market model, a particular zero-rated site may be accessible for free from one network, but not across all networks: unlike the situation with a toll-free number in which no such distinction exists.</p>
<p>To resolve this, the regulator may propose that if an OTT wishes to engage in paid zero-rating, it will need to do so across all networks, since if it doesn’t there is risk of providing an unfair advantage to one network over another and increasing the gatekeeper effect rather than decreasing it.</p>
<h2 id="question-2">Question 2</h2>
<p><em>Whether such platforms need to be regulated by the TRAI or market be allowed to develop these platforms?</em></p>
<p>In many cases, TRAI would have no powers over such platforms, so the question of TRAI regulating does not arise. In all other cases, TRAI can allow the market to develop such platforms, and then see if any of them violates the Discriminatory Data Tariffs Regualation. For government-incentivised schemes that are proposed above, TRAI should take proactive measure in getting their feasibility evaluated.</p>
<h2 id="question-3">Question 3</h2>
<p><em>Whether free data or suitable reimbursement to users should be limited to mobile data users only or could it be extended through technical means to subscribers of fixed line broadband or leased line?</em></p>
<p>Spectrum is naturally a scarce resource, though technological advances (as dictated by Cooper’s Law) and more efficient management of spectrum make it less so. However, we have seen that fixed-line broadband has more or less stagnated for the past many years, while mobile access has increased. So the market distortionary power of fixed-line providers is far less than that of mobile providers. However, competition is far less in fixed-line Internet access services, while it is far higher in mobile Internet access. Switching costs in fixed-line Internet access services are also far higher than in mobile services. Given these differences, the regulation with regard to price discrimination might justifiably be different.</p>
<p>All in all, for this particular issue, it is unclear why different rules should apply to mobile users and fixed line users.</p>
<h2 id="question-4">Question 4</h2>
<p><em>Any other issue related to the matter of Consultation.</em></p>
<p>None.</p>
<div class="footnotes">
<hr />
<ol>
<li id="fn1">
<p>In India’s mobile telecom sector, according to a Nielsen study, an estimated 15% of mobile users are multi-SIM users, meaning the “gatekeeping” effect is significantly reduced in both directions: Internet services can reach them via multiple ISPs, and conversely they can reach Internet services via multiple ISPs. <em>See</em> Nielsen, ‘Telecom Transitions: Tracking the Multi-SIM Phenomena in India’, http://www.nielsen.com/in/en/insights/reports/2015/telecom-transitions-tracking-the-multi-sim-phenomena-in-india.html<a href="#fnref1">↩</a></p>
</li></ol>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-trai-consultation-free-data'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-trai-consultation-free-data</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshTelecomHomepageTRAINet NeutralityFeaturedInternet GovernanceSubmissions2016-07-01T16:04:27ZBlog EntryTRAI Consultation on Differential Pricing for Data Services - Post-Open House Discussion Submission
http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-consultation-on-differential-pricing-for-data-services
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society sent this submission to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) following the Open House Discussion on Differential Pricing of Data Services, held in Delhi on February 21, 2016.</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Download the submission document: <a href="https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/docs/CIS_TRAI-Differential-Pricing_Submission_2015.01.25.pdf">PDF</a>.</h4>
<p> </p>
<h3>Post-Open House Discussion Submission to TRAI</h3>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Dear Ms. Kotwal,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This is to heartily congratulate TRAI once again for taking several steps, including the Open House Discussion, to ensure that various opinions about the topic of ‘differential pricing for data services’ are presented and are responded to - and are all in full public view.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This brief note is to <strong>a)</strong> add to the positions and arguments submitted previously by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India, <strong>b)</strong> put in writing our comments during the Open House Discussion (January 21, 2016), and <strong>c)</strong> respond to other comments shared at the same event. We have six points to share in this note:<br /><br /></p>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li><strong>Forbearance is not an option</strong>: We are of the opinion that though the data services market has thus far been kept un-monitored and unregulated, and there are several reasons why this situation should not continue any more. Although the reality of differential pricing (that is data packets originating from different sources being priced differently by ISPs) was highlighted with the recent offering of zero rated packs, it is a general practice in the sector, as illustrated by widely available special/curated content packs for the user to consume data from a specified web-based source. It is not surprising that most such special/curated content packs involve an arrangement between the ISP and a prominent leader in the web-content/platform sector, such as Facebook and Twitter. Serious market distorting impacts of such arrangements are imminent if they are allowed to continue without any monitoring, enforced public disclosure, and regulatory actions by a public authority.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Address differential treatment of data, and not only differential pricing</strong>: Pricing is only of the three ways in which data services can be treated differently by the ISPs depending upon the source of the data packets concerned. The other two ways are: a) differential speed, or throttling of some data packets and prioritisation of the others, and b) differential treatment of data protocols, for example, the blocking of peer-to-peer or voice-over-IP traffic by an ISP. If the public authority decides to only regulate differential pricing of data service, it is highly probable that ISPs may shift to other forms of discrimination between data packets - either in terms of prioritising some data packets over others based upon their origin, or blocking of specific protocols such as voice-over-IP to prevent the functioning of certain web-based services - and continue the market distorting impacts through these other means.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Allow and define reasonable network management practices</strong>: Reasonable network management has to be allowed to enable the ISPs to manage performance on their network. However, ISPs may not indulge in acts that are harmful to users in the name of reasonable network management. Below is a set of potential guidelines to identify cases when discrimination against classes of data traffic in the name of reasonable network management can be considered justified and permissible:<br />
<ul><li>there is an intelligible differentia between the classes which are to be treated differently,</li>
<li>there is a rational nexus between the differential treatment and the aim of such differentiation,</li>
<li>the aim sought to be furthered is legitimate, and is related to the security, stability, or efficient functioning of the network, or is a technical limitation outside the control of the ISP, and</li>
<li>the network management practice is the least harmful technical means that is reasonably available to achieve the aim.</li><br /></ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Establish an effective enforcement mechanism</strong>: TRAI must establish an enforcement mechanism that is open to users [and groups of users] and private sector actors as current forums are insufficient. Clear and simple rules must be established ex-ante, if they are violated - ex-post regulation must be undertaken on the basis of principles listed in the TRAI consultation paper, that is “non-discrimination, transparency, affordable internet access, competition and market entry, and innovation” <a name="fr1">[1]</a><br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Take regulatory decisions now, but also conduct and commission further research to review and refine the decisions over a defined period of time</strong><br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Need for better collection and proactive disclosure of statistics</strong>: TRAI publishes quarterly performance indicators statistics collected from the telecom companies about telephone, mobile, and internet sectors in India <a name="fr2">[2]</a>. It will be very useful for researchers and analysts, and allow for a much more informed public debate on the matter, if the content and form of such data are improved in the following ways:<br />
<br /><strong>Content:</strong>
<ul>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Please start collection (unless already done) and publication of not only data of average incoming and outgoing MOUs, average of total outgoing SMSs, Average Revenue Per User, and average data usage per GSM and CDMA subscriber, but distributions of the same in terms of user deciles (that is in terms of representative figures for each 10% section of users in ascending order of usage),</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Provide granular data about data usage across service areas and service providers (the numbers on ‘average data usage’ and total ‘revenue from data usage’ provided at present are very insufficient for the state of public debate),</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Provide data about internet subscriber base according to network technologies (for both wired and wireless) and the service providers concerned,</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Provide data about IP-based telephony across service areas and service providers,</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Provide data separately for the North Eastern states, and</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Provide granular data (separated from the corresponding state data) for all tier-1 cities.</div>
</li></ul>
<br />
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Form:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Please do not publish the data only as part of the quarterly reports available in PDF format, but also as independent machine-readable spreadsheet file (preferably in CSV format),</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Do not only publish quarterly data in separate files, but also provide a combined (all quarters together) dataset that would make it much easier for researchers and analysts to use the data,</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">In some exceptional cases, the data is not provided in the report directly but a diagram containing the data is published <a name="fr3">[3]</a>, which should be kindly avoided, and</div>
</li>
<li>
<div style="text-align: justify;">Please publish these statistics as open data, that is in open standards and under open licenses.<br /><br /></div>
</li></ul>
</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, we request TRAI to explore possibilities of distributed sourcing of data, perhaps from the users themselves, about the actual network usage experiences, including but not limited to signal strength, data transfer speed (incoming and outgoing), frequency of switches between mobile (GSM and CDMA) and wi-fi connectivity, etc.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>References</h3>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">[<a name="fn1">1</a>]. http://trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/Document/CP-Differential-Pricing-09122015.pdf.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">[<a name="fn2">2</a>]. http://www.trai.gov.in/Content/PerformanceIndicatorsReports/1_1_PerformanceIndicatorsReports.aspx.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">[<a name="fn3">3</a>]. http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PIRReport/Documents/Performance_Indicator_Report_Jun_2015.pdf , sections 1.43 and 1.44 (pp. 31-32).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-consultation-on-differential-pricing-for-data-services'>http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-consultation-on-differential-pricing-for-data-services</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroInternet AccessTRAINet NeutralityTelecomTRAI, OTTInternet Governance2016-03-30T13:13:30ZBlog EntryCIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top Services
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2015-03-27_cis_trai-submission_regulation-OTTs
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2015-03-27_cis_trai-submission_regulation-OTTs'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2015-03-27_cis_trai-submission_regulation-OTTs</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionTRAINet Neutrality2016-03-25T17:59:56ZFile‘A Good Day for the Internet Everywhere': India Bans Differential Data Pricing
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere
<b>India distinguished itself as a global leader on network neutrality on February 8, when regulators officially banned “differential pricing”, a process through which telecommunications service providers could or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services offered based on content.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published by <a class="external-link" href="https://globalvoices.org/2016/02/09/a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere-india-bans-differential-data-pricing/">Global Voices </a>on February 9, 2016</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In short, this means that Internet access in India will remain an open field, where users should be guaranteed equal access to any website they want to visit, regardless of how they connect to the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In their ruling, <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf"><span>Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) commented:</span></a></p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users’ internet experience.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TRAIFreesInternet?src=hash"><span>#TRAIFreesInternet</span></a> | Key take aways from TRAI’s ruling on Net Neutrality <a href="https://t.co/xlFsLb3bZ6"><span>pic.twitter.com/xlFsLb3bZ6</span></a></p>
<p>— CNN-IBN News (@ibnlive) <a href="https://twitter.com/ibnlive/status/696746896556032000"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The decision of the Indian government has been welcomed largely in the country and outside. In support of the move, the World Wide Web Foundation's Renata Avila, also a Global Voices community member, <a href="http://webfoundation.org/2016/02/worlds-biggest-democracy-bans-zero-rating/?platform=hootsuite"><span>wrote:</span></a></p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world. It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can’t create a two-tier Internet – one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web.</p>
</blockquote>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">A blow for Facebook's “Free Basics”</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the new rules should long outlast this moment in India's Internet history, the ruling should immediately force Facebook to cancel the local deployment of “Free Basics”, a smart phone application that offers free access to Facebook, Facebook-owned products like WhatsApp, and a select suite of other websites for users who do not pay for mobile data plans.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook's efforts to deploy and promote Free Basics as what they described as a remedy to India's lack of “digital equality” has encountered significant backlash. Last December, technology critic and Quartz writer<a href="http://qz.com/582587/mark-zuckerberg-cant-believe-india-isnt-grateful-for-facebooks-free-internet/"><span> Alice Truong reacted to Free Basics saying:</span></a></p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn’t apply to India because having some service is better than no service.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When TRAI solicited public comments on the matter of differential pricing, Facebook responded with an aggressive <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/17/save-free-basics/" target="_blank"><span>advertising campaign </span></a>on bill boards and in television commercials across the nation. It also embedded a campaign inside Facebook, asking users to write to TRAI in support of Free Basics.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TRAI <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/facebooks-free-basics-campaign-slammed-by-indian-regulator-1539261" target="_blank"><span>criticized</span></a> Facebook for what it seemed to regard as manipulation of the public. Facebook was also heavily challenged by many policy and open Internet advocates including non-profits like the <a href="http://www.fsmi.in/" target="_blank"><span>Free Software Movement of India</span></a> and the <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.in/" target="_blank"><span>Savetheinternet.in</span></a> campaign. The latter two collectives strongly discouraged Free Basics by bringing public opinion where Savetheinternet.in alone facilitated a campaign in which citizens sent over <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech%20news/Net-neutrality-Trai-gets-24-lakh-comments-on-differential-data-pricing-paper/articleshow/50493525.cms" target="_blank"><span>2.4 million emails</span></a> to TRAI urging the agency to put a stop to differential pricing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Alongside these efforts, <a href="http://blog.savetheinternet.in/startups-pm-letter/" target="_blank"><span>500 Indian startups</span></a> including major ones like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax also wrote to India's prime minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality" target="_blank"><span>net neutrality</span></a>—on the Indian Republic Day January 26.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Stand-up comedians like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSxB1mD7SdE&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank"><span>Abish Mathew</span></a> and groups like <a href="https://youtu.be/AAQWsTFF0BM" target="_blank"><span>All India Bakchod</span></a> and <a href="https://youtu.be/UCwaKje44fQ" target="_blank"><span>East India Comedy</span></a> created humorous and informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality which went viral.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Had differential pricing been officially legalized, it would have adversely affected startups and content-based smaller companies, who most likely could never manage to pay higher prices to partner with service providers to make their service available for free. This would have paved the way for tech-giants like Facebook to capture the entire market. And this would be no small gain for a company like Facebook: India represents the world's largest market of Internet users after the US and China, where Facebook remains blocked.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet responds</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There have been mixed responses on social media, both supporting and opposing. Among open Internet advocates both in India and the US, the response was celebratory:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p dir="ltr">This order shows the power of citizen involvement in policymaking. Policymakers are forced to listen if citizens engage. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash"><span>#NetNeutrality</span></a></p>
<p>— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh) <a href="https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/696720959974211586"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>I think this is not just a good day for the Internet in India. It's a good day for the Internet everywhere <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TRAI?src=hash"><span>#TRAI</span></a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/savetheinternet?src=hash"><span>#savetheinternet</span></a></p>
<p>— Anja Kovacs (@anjakovacs) <a href="https://twitter.com/anjakovacs/status/696657952946565121"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>India is now the global leader on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash"><span>#NetNeutrality</span></a>. New rules are stronger than those in EU and US. <a href="https://t.co/D6g68k2xaI"><span>https://t.co/D6g68k2xaI</span></a></p>
<p>— Josh Levy (@levjoy) <a href="https://twitter.com/levjoy/status/696716845290655744"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are also those like <a href="https://www.facebook.com/rajkiran.panuganti/posts/10153961592211457"><span>Panuganti Rajkiran</span></a> who opposed the ruling:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>A terrible decision.. The worst part here is the haves deciding for the have nots what they can have and what they cannot.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>When you buy a car, it's fulfilment of aspiration. After that, the next guy who buys a car is just traffic. Let's regulate. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash"><span>#NetNeutrality</span></a></p>
<p>— Ramesh Srivats (@rameshsrivats) <a href="https://twitter.com/rameshsrivats/status/696737409136926721"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.facebook.com/soumya.manikkath/posts/10153386837235920"><span>Soumya Manikkath</span></a> says:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>So all is not lost in the world, for the next two years at least. Do come back with a better plan, dear Facebook, and we'll rethink, of course.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ruling leaves an open pathway for companies to offer consumers free access to the Internet, provided that this access is truly open and does not limit one's ability to browse any site of her choosing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Bangalore-based Internet policy expert Pranesh Prakash noted that this work must continue until India is truly — and equally — connected:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>The pro-<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash"><span>#NetNeutrality</span></a> campaign shouldn't rest until every poor family in India has full and free access to the Internet. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ZeroRating?src=hash"><span>#ZeroRating</span></a></p>
<p>— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh) <a href="https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/696732814083907584"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-02-25T01:21:27ZBlog Entry