The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 4.
Live [Closed]: TRAI Open House Discussion on OTT Regulation - Delhi
http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/news/live-closed-trai-open-house-discussion-on-ott-regulation-delhi
<b>TRAI organized an open house discussion on “Regulatory Framework for OTT Services” in Delhi on May 20, 2019. Anubha Sinha attended the event.</b>
<p><span>The objective of </span><a href="https://main.trai.gov.in/consultation-paper-regulatory-framework-over-top-ott-communication-services">the consultation</a><span> was to look into services that they are considering as being possibly ‘similar’ to those provided by telecom service providers. </span><a href="https://main.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/CPOTT12112018_0.pdf">The consultation paper</a><span> sought to compare licensing norms and regulations applicable to TSPs and OTTs, on the grounds that the certain services provided by them are substitutable with one another. Our notes from the TRAI Open House in Bangalore on April 24th are </span><a href="https://www.medianama.com/2019/04/223-live-trai-open-house-discussion-on-ott-regulation/">here</a><span>.</span></p>
<p>For more see <a class="external-link" href="https://www.medianama.com/2019/05/223-live-trai-open-house-discussion-on-ott-regulation-delhi/">Medianama site</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/news/live-closed-trai-open-house-discussion-on-ott-regulation-delhi'>http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/news/live-closed-trai-open-house-discussion-on-ott-regulation-delhi</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminTelecomTRAI, OTT2019-05-28T02:04:17ZNews ItemTRAI 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 EntryTRAI and the Disclosure of Personal Information
http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-and-the-disclosure-of-personal-information
<b>The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), in March 2015 invited comments on its Consultation Paper for the regulation of over-the-top (OTT) services. In an unprecedented wave of public participation, TRAI received over a million e-mails in support of net neutrality.</b>
<p>This note sets out the law in relation to the unauthorized disclosure of personal information. <i>Many thanks to Bhairav Acharya for his inputs on this</i>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Subsequently, on April 27, 2015, TRAI made all responses received by it public, including personal information like email addresses along with any information contained in email signatures, which invariably include a phone number or address. While disclosure of names was needed to ensure transparency in the consultation process, disclosure of personal information gave rise to criticism and questions around the legality of such disclosure.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This note sets out the law in relation to the unauthorized disclosure of personal information:<br />Section 43A of the IT Act provides for subordinate legislation to govern the manner in which sensitive personal data is collected and processed. The governance of personal information is dealt with under the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 (“2011 Rules”). The 2011 Rules are made to give effect to Section 43A of the IT Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TRAI is a body corporate as per Section 3(2) of the TRAI Act. Hence, TRAI’s collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information is governed by the 2011 Rules. Rule 5(8) requires personal information collected to be held securely. TRAIs publishing of email addresses is a violation of Rule 5(8).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Rule 4 of the 2011 rules requires a body corporate to have a privacy policy. On its website, TRAI publishes a Privacy Policy. However, the Policy speaks of information gathered from the TRAI- Website. Even the wording on the Home Page of the TRAI website (that links to these policies) says “Website Policies”. It is unclear therefore, whether the Privacy Policy applies ONLY to the collection of information over the TRAI- Website or whether the Privacy Policy applies to TRAI overall. <br /><br />Either way there is an argument to be made. TRAI has failed to draft and publicize a privacy policy for the personal information it collects directly. Without prejudice to the above, if the privacy policy on the TRAI website governs this collection of email addresses, then its unauthorized disclosure is a contravention of its own Privacy Policy, specifically paragraph 2.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since the IT Act does not enact a specific penalty for contravention of section 43A in respect of personal information, TRAI’s unauthorized disclosure will be penalized through the residuary penalty contained in section 45 of the IT Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hence TRAI is liable under Section 45 of the IT Act read with Rules 4 and 5(8) of the 2011 Rules. Section 45 provides a “residuary penalty”; for those provisions under the IT Act or Rules for whose contravention no other penalty has been prescribed. For this contravention, TRAI would have to pay a compensation of 25,000/- to the affected persons or a penalty of 25,000/- rupees.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TRAI may argue that it disclosed that personal information would be disclosed/published. However, the Call for Comments Press Release says that Comments will be published. Email addresses are not comments, and therefore TRAI did not issue a prior disclaimer for the publication of this personal information – hence the disclosure of e-mail addresses is still a violation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The remedy for violation of Section 43A of the IT Act is the Adjudicating Authority appointed under Section 46(1), which requires a person not below the rank of Director in the appropriate government to receive complaints. Since TRAI is a body corporate as per the Act, it is unclear as to who the adjudicating officer in the present case should be; and is the matter of a separate research question.<br /><br />The Appellate authority is the Cyber Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 48 of the IT Act . It is not known if the tribunal has been constituted, and if it has; it is unknown whether it is staffed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the absence of clarity with regard to statutory authorities, a citizen whose personal information has been disclosed by TRAI without authorization may file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under Article 226, or in the Supreme Court under Article 32 for issue of a writ of mandamus or prohibition, for appointment of the first adjudicating officer and also for issuance of directions in lieu of such an officer.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-and-the-disclosure-of-personal-information'>http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-and-the-disclosure-of-personal-information</a>
</p>
No publisherNehaa Chaudhari and Vidushi MardaTelecomIT ActTRAI, OTTInternet Governance2015-05-10T09:16:28ZBlog Entry“OTTs Eating Into Our Revenue”: Telcos in India
http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/otts-eating-into-our-revenue-telcos-in-india
<b>On August 5, 2014, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India organised a seminar on a regulatory framework for Over-The-Top services. This is a lay discussion of the Seminar and its focus on matters crucial to telecom, the Internet and the existing regulatory framework.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Tuesday, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) held a seminar to initiate discussion on potential regulation of “over the top” services (OTTs) in India. TRAI organized the seminar to “understand perspectives of all stakeholders involved”, following grievances of telcos that OTTs are eating into their revenues and free-riding on their networks. In fact, a letter from the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) to TRAI outlines these concerns excellently. The letter, which I had the opportunity to see in print, objects that telcos take the trouble of laying and maintaining networks, while rapidly mushrooming OTTs eat into their revenue. Whatsapp, Skype and alternatives to paid text-and-call find particular mention in the COAI’s letter, and the COAI President Vikram Tiwathia was vociferous in his iteration of operators’ concerns. With VOIP and other OTTs replacing telco services, telcos are rapidly losing large parts of their revenue, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I don’t mean to brush their concerns aside, of course. However, there is a need to consider in depth certain questions with statistical, regulatory and principled exploration. As Dr. Rajat Kathuria of <a href="http://www.icrier.org/">ICRIER</a> said at the Seminar’s first session, we need to evaluate whether there’s a need for regulation in the first place. This includes exploring whether the answer lies in <i>deregulation</i>, as Suhaan Mukerji of <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/plr-chambers">PLR Chambers</a> and Subho Ray of <a href="http://www.iamai.in/">IAMAI</a> emphasized separately. Our solution, as Mr. Ray said, should not be to chain the free OTTs just because we are in chains ourselves. Unchaining telcos from their stringent licensing and other regulations may be more appropriate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Seminar was attended by telcos, OTTs, civil society and other stakeholders, and the frank exchange of views at the PHD Chamber of Commerce was heartening. While telcos in the room were broadly open to OTT innovation upon their networks (Mr. T.V. Ramachandran of <i>Vodafone</i> was particularly vocal on this), there exists a broadly reactionary loss-of-footing and apprehension over their current and projected revenue loss. Mr. C.S. Rao of <i>Reliance</i> was spot on when he said that telcos are afraid that what’s worked for them so far may not work in the future.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We’ve seen examples of such fear of incumbent operators before. In the early 1990s, the invention and spread of the Internet displaced appliancized, bundled models of telco services, and telcos were similarly unwelcoming. Indeed, AT&T went to court to fight the introduction of the Carterfone. In India, the falling demand for VAS today, and OTT-response to consumer demand, fosters such fear.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But accounting for OTTs’ lack of consumer servicing or responsibility for monetization models, what was of chief concern at the TRAI Seminar was the predominant focus on revenue. Telco profitability and their incentives for investment <i>are</i> important. Increasing supply side costs, with the government seeking to maximize revenue from spectrum allocation and demands of lower consumer prices, <i>might</i> be throttling current telco business models. We’d need to analyse data usage charges and projected mobile broadband penetration, in comparison with voice penetration, to be clear about the extent of such strangulation. But if the answer to failing telco business lies in further regulation and potential strangling of innovation, that’s a concern.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That’s in two ways. <i>First</i>, it isn’t merely the NetFlix or Google or Apple that populate the app economy. Raman Chima (ironically of Google) offered the example of Slideshare in Okhla, Delhi as one of the many successful Indian micro-multinationals. There are many others across India. <i>Second</i>, India’s current telecom regulatory model is unfit for a data/Internet content model. There’s a need, Suhaan Mukerji and Mahesh Uppal of <a href="http://in.linkedin.com/pub/com-first-india-pvt-ltd/76/268/186">ComFirst</a> pointed out, to rethink our strict telecom licensing regime. We should begin to think, at least, of a vertically integrated <i>layered</i> model of telecom regulation that regulates on the basis of <i>function</i>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These layers are integral to Internet architecture: network, transport, application. OTTs lie at the application layer, while telcos operate at the network and transport layers. It may be inefficient to utilize failures at one layer to regulate or share revenue of companies at other layers – that would stunt competition and innovation. A reconfigured licensing regime, permitting telcos to innovate more (someone at the Seminar said security clearances take years, while OTTs need no such clearance) might be more efficient and beneficial for all stakeholders involved – not least the disempowered individual consumers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">That’s my sense of the Seminar. Profitability and incentives are crucial. But they are crucial <i>insofar</i> as they benefit consumers – with access, choice, freedom of speech, security and privacy. Revenue sharing or partnership models, which were mentioned far too many times by multiple speakers without <i>sufficient</i> justification or elaboration, may not be ideal for any of us in the long term. But these are issues we – and TRAI – should consider while debating a regulatory framework.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Underlying infrastructure has an impact on our fundamental freedoms such as speech – the Supreme Court’s decisions in <i>Sakal Papers </i>and <i>Express Newspapers</i> makes that clear. Fast-paced innovation and the boundary-less benefits of a single, interoperable Internet have pushed us to favour security against freedoms. But every model we consider today – ad-based monetization, big data analytics – have implications that the NSA’s mass, cross-border surveillance has highlighted. Since TRAI is rethinking our regulatory framework for telecom and the Internet – and I envisage this going into a constructive consultation in the near future – these issues must inform its analysis and conclusions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For more, read <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/08/223-siddhartha-roy-hungama-net-neutrality-ott-telecom/">Nikhil Pahwa’s report</a> over at MediaNama.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/otts-eating-into-our-revenue-telcos-in-india'>http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/blog/otts-eating-into-our-revenue-telcos-in-india</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaTelecomTRAI, OTT2014-09-10T05:36:37ZBlog Entry