I strongly support an open internet, for which I believe it is critical to uphold net

neutrality and reject any moves towards licensing of Internet applications and Web
services.
I urge TRAI to commit to outlining measures to protect and advance net neutrality for all
Indians. Net neutrality requires that the Internet be maintained as an open platform, on
which network providers treat all content, applications and services equally, without
discrimination. The TRAI must give importance to safeguarding the interests of our
countrys citizens and the national objective of Digital India and Make In India, over
claims made by some corporate interests.
I request that my response be published on the TRAI website alongside other
comments filed, in line with past practice regarding public consultations. I urge that
TRAI issue a specific response to user submissions after examining the concerns raised
by them, and hold open house discussions across India, accessible to users and
startups before making any recommendations.

Question 1: Is it too early to establish a regulatory framework for Internet/OTT services,

since internet penetration is still evolving, access speeds are generally low and there is
limited coverage of high-speed broadband in the country? Or, should some beginning
be made now with a regulatory framework that could be adapted to changes in the
future? Please comment with justifications.
No new regulatory framework in the telecom sector is required for Internet services and
apps - and no such regulation should come into effect in future either.
This question incorrectly presumes that regulation of the Internet is absent and there is
a need to create it. Additionally, the technical language of Over-the-Top applications
used in the consultation paper fails to convey that it is truly referring to the online
services and applications which make todays Internet which we all use; Facebook, Ola,
Zomato, Paytm, WhatsApp, Zoho and Skype etc. The Internet is already subject to
existing law in India - any extra regulatory or licensing regime will only be detrimental to
the customer and to Indian firms developing online services and apps.
Under the current regulatory framework, users can access the internet-based services
and apps either for a low fee or for free where the application owners make money by
selling advertisements based on user data. With additional regulations and licenses, it
will make it expensive for these services to reach out to their customers eventually
leading to higher prices and undesirable levels of advertising - which is against the

public interest and counterproductive.

It appears that the telecom companies are shifting goalposts. Many telecom companies
have earlier argued in the consultation paper floated by TRAI on mobile value added
services (MVAS) that it was not necessary to regulate these value added services. They
said MVAS are already governed by general laws under the Indian legal system and
comply with the security interests as they operate on the networks of legitimate telecom
license holders. Internet platforms also are regulated and governed by general laws in
addition to specialised laws such as the Information Technology Act, and the same
treatment should be extended to them as well.
As TRAI said previously in its recommendations after consulting on MVAS regulation:
The Authority preferred least intrusive and minimal regulatory framework and thus no
separate category of licence for value added services is envisaged. After second round
of consultations, the Authority is also not favoring registration of Value Added Service
Providers (VASPs) or content aggregators under the Other Service Provider (OSP)
category.
Content shall be subject to relevant content regulation and compliance of prevailing
copyrights including digital management rights and other laws on the subject (para
3.12.2). The content is subjected to content regulation/ guidelines of Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting, Information Technology Act, 2000, Cable Television
Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, Indian Copyright Act etc., as amended from time to
time. The content regulation shall be as per law in force from time to time. There should
be consistency in the treatment of content across all kinds of media including print,
digital/multimedia to avoid any discrimination. (para 3.13.3):
Imposing a licensing and regulation regime carry significant risks of destroying
innovation. Launching new services and features will take more time and will make it
difficult for new startups with low cash reserves to enter the market. It will basically ring
the death knell for the country's fast-growing digital media sector.

Question 2: Should the Internet/OTT players offering communication services (voice,

messaging and video call services through applications (resident either in the country or
outside) be brought under the licensing regime? Please comment with justifications.
Firstly, there is no need for licensing of internet based communication service providers.
To suggest such a move further points towards the TRAI consultation being tilted in
favour of telecom operators.
Secondly, fundamentally both Internet-based communication services and noncommunication services are the same. They sit on top of the network provided by
telecom operators. And the spectrum that telecom operators utilise to offer this network

on pipe is already licensed, hence there is no need for additional licensing.

This issue also needs to be looked at from another perspective. Many noncommunication services on the Internet also offer real-time chat or video interaction
features for the benefit of customers, which will be affected by bringing such services
under a licensing regime.
The extent of innovation we have witnessed over the years has been greatly aided by
the low cost of entry. Any form of regulation or licensing will increase the entry cost,
thereby hindering innovation and equal opportunity to startups to establish themselves
in the market. Behind every Zoho, WhatsApp and Skype there are numerous failures.
Licensing will essentially increase the cost and likelihood of failure - and greatly
discourage innovation.

Question 3: Is the growth of Internet/OTT impacting the traditional revenue stream of

Telecom operators/Telecom operators? If so, is the increase in data revenues of the
Telecom Operators sufficient to compensate for this impact? Please comment with
reasons.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that VoIP services like Hike or Skype are
cannibalising voice revenues of telecom operators. In fact, heads of more than one
Indian telecom operator have clearly stated the same over the past few months. For
example, Airtel India CEO Gopal Vittal had said during the companys earnings
conference call, earlier this year, that theres no evidence of VoIP cannibalisation of
voice services. Last year, Idea Cellular MD Himanshu Kapania had also said that OTT
apps like Viber have had some impact on their International calling business, but on
regular voice calls, there was no impact.
We also need to remember that data revenues also fall under the traditional revenue
streams category as per the Unified Access License Agreement
(http://www.dot.gov.in/access-services/introduction-unified-access-servicescellularmobile-services). So, it is factually incorrect to say that increase in data revenues will
affect traditional revenue streams.
A Morgan Stanley report on the Indian telecom industry from last year mentions that
data revenues is likely to contribute about 23% of telecom operators overall revenues
over the next two years. A study jointly done by AT Kearney and Google estimated that
telecom companies will earn an additional $8 billion in revenues by 2017 due to the
proliferation of data and data-based services.

Question 4: Should the Internet/OTT players pay for use of the Telecom Operators
network over and above data charges paid by consumers? If yes, what pricing options

can be adopted? Could such options include prices based on bandwidth consumption?
Can prices be used as a means of product/service differentiation? Please comment with
justifications.
As I argue in my answers above, telecom companies are expected to grow steadily and
so is data. Public statements made by officials of telecom companies, their earnings
report and analysis of independent agencies suggest that telecom companies will
continue to grow. So, there is no need for them to impose additional revenue from
customers - and there is especially no justification of creating an extra revenue source
supported by government intervention. The term bandwidth consumption is
ambiguous. Currently, customers are billed for the quantum of data used and not the
bandwidth.
Charging users an additional fee over and above the data charges to access specific
internet services will result in higher costs which will dissuade people from using such
services. Moreover, as explained earlier, many online businesses have video and chat
applications within them to interact with customers. In such cases, it will be extremely
difficult for users to ascertain the sum billed to them if they access the websites of such
businesses. There will be no transparency in billing and it will run afoul of TRAIs own
2006 Quality of Service Billing regulations which ensures transparency in billing and
tariff plans.
Taking an additional fee also breaks the internet. Today, many websites, especially
blogs, have hyperlinked content and users can switch from one website to another
without having to worry about access or cost. But differential pricing will not provide
such a seamless experience. Moreover, it tends to favor the larger firms with deep
pockets, essentially not providing a level-playing field.

Question 5: Do you agree that imbalances exist in the regulatory environment in the
operation of Internet/OTT players? If so, what should be the framework to address
these issues? How can the prevailing laws and regulations be applied to Internet/OTT
players (who operate in the virtual world) and compliance enforced? What could be the
impact on the economy? Please comment with justifications.
Firstly, there is no regulatory imbalance in regards to Internet-based services and apps.
It is the telecom operators who own spectrum, which is a public resource, and hence
need to be licensed. Internet services dont need licenses. Telecom operators provided
the pipe or network on top of which Internet services exist. So, theres a clear distinction
between the two.
It also needs to be pointed out that Internet services are already covered by the
Information Technology Act, 2008 and the Indian Penal Code. So, theres no need for a
separate regulatory framework or licensing. In fact, this was the exact argument telecom
operators had earlier made while stating their case for not regulating mobile value

added services (MVAS), which in essence is quite similar Internet-based services.

Question 6: How should the security concerns be addressed with regard to OTT players
providing communication services? What security conditions such as maintaining data
records, logs etc. need to be mandated for such OTT players? And, how can
compliance with these conditions be ensured if the applications of such OTT players
reside outside the country? Please comment with justifications.
The internet services and apps are well-covered under the existing laws and
regulations. These include the Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Telegraph Act, Indian
Telegraph Rules, and the Information Technology Act and its different rules pertaining to
intermediaries and interception. These different regulations allow the Indian government
and law enforcement agencies to access the data stored by internet platforms when
deemed legally necessary. Any additional regulations carry grave risk of breaching user
privacy and would also require constitutional review - especially since the Government
is still working on a proposed Privacy Bill.
The government and courts also have the power to block access to websites on the
grounds of national security and public order. It has taken similar steps in the past and
has been widely reported by the media. The transparency reports periodically published
by major internet companies suggests Indian government routinely requests for user
data and blocking of user accounts. Between July 2014 and December 2014, Indian
authorities had 5,473 requests for data, covering 7,281 user accounts from Facebook
and the company had a compliance rate of 44.69%. Google had a compliance rate of
61% with respect to the requests made by different government agencies across India.

Question 7: How should the OTT players offering app services ensure security, safety
and privacy of the consumer? How should they ensure protection of consumer interest?
Please comment with justifications.
Although user privacy and security is of paramount importance, additional regulation
carries the inherent risk of breaching user privacy which is not in the consumers
interest. The Information Technology Act, 2000 already addresses the security concerns
of the user. But more importantly, any criminal act committed using these platforms can
be tried under the Indian Penal Code. So, there is no need to burden the internet
platforms with additional regulations.
Also, it is worth noting that many telecom companies in India have not made information
publicly available as to whether and how they comply with regulations that guarantee
security, privacy and safety of the customer. TRAIs current paper fails to articulate why
the internet services and apps should be brought under similar regulations.

Question 8:
In what manner can the proposals for a regulatory framework for OTTs in India draw
from those of ETNO, referred to in para 4.23 or the best practices summarised in para
4.29? And, what practices should be proscribed by regulatory fiat? Please comment
with justifications.
ETNO is similar to Indias COAI which makes it an industry lobby group.
Understandably, the suggestions made by ETNO heavily favor the telecom companies
and will be detrimental to customers if India refers to their suggestions.
ETNOs stand have been widely criticized in the past. Europes own group of
government regulators [Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication
(BEREC)]
http://berec.europa.eu/files/document_register_store/2012/11/BoR_
%2812%29_120_BEREC_on_ITR.pdf ETNOs proposals could jeopardize the
continued development of the open, dynamic and global platform that the Internet
provides which will lead to an overall loss of welfare. Additionally, the international
free expression group Article 19 says ETNOs proposal would seriously undermine net
neutrality.
According to Access Now, ETNOs recommendations would have meant higher data
charges for customers while from an entrepreneurs standpoint, it will limit their ability to
reach out to a wider market. For a small but fast growing startup and digital media
sector in India, this can potentially ring the death knell. ETNOs suggestions on this
subject so far have failed to have been accepted by any government agency - including
the regulators in their own host countries. It is therefore especially troubling that TRAI is
choosing to make one of their proposals a pillar of this public consultation here in India.

Question 9: What are your views on net-neutrality in the Indian context? How should the
various principles discussed in para 5.47 be dealt with? Please comment with
justifications.
Net Neutrality, by definition, means no discrimination of traffic flowing on the internet
with respect to speed, access and price. Chile and Brazil, which are developing
countries just like India, have passed laws supporting net neutrality. This is in addition to
government commitments to implement net neutrality legislation in the United States
and European Union.
India has 1 billion people without internet access and it is imperative for our democracy
to have an open and free internet where users are free to choose the services they want

to accessinstead of a telecom operator deciding what information they can access.

Internet apps and services are expected to contribute 5% to Indias GDP by 2020. That
will only happen of entrepreneurs, big and small, have a level playing field that
encourages innovation and non-preferential treatmentsomething that net neutrality
ensures.
Assuming there is no net neutrality, only the big players will be able to strike deals with
telcos while the smaller players remain inaccessible, which will go against the principles
of net neutrality as listed below:
No blocking by TSPs and ISPs on specific forms of internet traffic, services and
applications.
No slowing or throttling internet speeds by TSPs and ISPs on specific forms of internet
traffic, services and applications.
No preferential treatment of services and platforms by TSPs and ISPs.
It is also worth noting that the proposed framework will give too much power in the
hands of the telecom companies, which is not healthy for the ecosystem.

Question 10: What forms of discrimination or traffic management practices are

reasonable and consistent with a pragmatic approach? What should or can be
permitted? Please comment with justifications.
This question assumes that traffic discrimination is necessary and is a norm. Rather,
traffic discrimination should be an exception as it is against the principles of net
neutrality.
In such exceptional cases, telecom companies need to have the permission of TRAI or
other competent government agency through public hearing to carry out traffic
management to ensure transparency in the entire process. Further, it should be kept in
mind that such steps shouldnt interfere with the access, affordability and quality of the
services.
More importantly, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/Traffic
%20Management%20Investigation%20BEREC_2.pdf jointly by BEREC and the
European Commission suggest that the propensity of the telecom operators to restrict
access of internet services is high. The report noted that telecom operators were most
inclined to block and throttle P2P services on mobile as well as fixed line networks.
VoIP, on the other hand, was blocked mostly on telecom networks.
Keeping this in mind, TRAI needs to ensure that instances of discrimination of traffic

should be few, far between and, above all, transparent.

Question 11: Should the TSPs be mandated to publish various traffic management
techniques used for different OTT applications? Is this a sufficient condition to ensure
transparency and a fair regulatory regime?
The question is based on the premise that publishing various traffic management
techniques for Internet services will ensure a fair regulatory regime and therefore such
discrimination is permissible. As I have repeatedly said in the above answers,
discrimination of services will not bring about a fair regime for users.
Further, a recent study [http://bit.ly/1D7QEp9] in the UK has pointed out that merely
publishing data on traffic management will not translate into a fair regime. The study
found that most consumers did not understand traffic management or use it as a basis
for switching operators. Those who did do so comprised a group perceived to be small
or insignificant enough that most network operators did not seek to factor them into their
product decisions, despite some consumers complaints about traffic management. In
India where awareness and activism on issues of net neutrality is considerably less, it is
unlikely to play the critical role that the Consultation Paper suggests.

Question 12: How should a conducive and balanced environment be created such that
TSPs are able to invest in network infrastructure and CAPs are able to innovate and
grow? Who should bear the network upgradation costs? Please comment with
justifications
The question assumes that a balanced environment would lead to increased
investment and upgradation of networks.. However, if revenue is generated by charging
CAPs to reach customers rather than only charging users for data, the incentives for a
TSP can potentially change. Telecom operators now gain the incentive to maintain a
level scarcity and not upgrade existing infrastructure in order to maximize gatekeeper
revenue. There is no evidence to support that access fees charged to CAPs will spark
network upgradation and may have the opposite effect itself.
Weve mentioned before that telecom operators should be acting as data pipes which
can provide users access to Internet and that they stand to substantially gain from
upgrading networks. Telecom operators stand to gain substantially by upgrading
existing networks by proliferating the use of data by users, and it therefore stands to
reason that the costs of upgradation should be borne by them. The above answers also
point out that the heads of the leading telecom operators in the country have not seen
evidence of cannibalization of existing services and that data usage has only been
steadily increasing.

Question 13: Should TSPs be allowed to implement non-price based discrimination of

services? If so, under what circumstances are such practices acceptable? What
restrictions, if any, need to be placed so that such measures are not abused? What
measures should be adopted to ensure transparency to consumers? Please comment
with justifications.
Discrimination of services in any form is detrimental for the growth of the telecom
industry itself and there should be no circumstance for a telecom operator to do so.
Given the diverse nature of the Internet, telecom operators should not be allowed to
determine what type of service should get more priority. For example, a consumer in
India probably relies on VoIP calls to keep in touch with people abroad and if there is
throttling of these services, it infringes on the users fundamental right of freedom of
expression. An Internet service that a telecom operator thinks which could lead to traffic
congestion, might be vital to consumers. Further, a telecom operator might use throttling
to further a service promoted by them and induce consumers into using them, thereby
eliminating choice.
Transparency alone will not bring about a fair regime for users, and it is crucial that
TSPs be prohibited from discriminating between services

Question 14: Is there a justification for allowing differential pricing for data access and
OTT communication services? If so, what changes need to be brought about in the
present tariff and regulatory framework for telecommunication services in the country?
Please comment with justifications.
As I have argued in my previous answers, there should be no differential pricing for data
access and internet services. Therefore, the need for a change in the tariff and
regulatory framework is not required.
It is important to note that nearly one billion people still don't have internet access in
India - which means telecom companies stand to gain substantially from their data
services in the near future. Moreover, different pricing is tantamount to discrimination
which goes against net neutrality.
As stated before, customers should be charged on the basis of volume of data used and
not on the basis of the internet services they are accessing.

Question 15: Should OTT communication service players be treated as Bulk User of
Telecom Services (BuTS)? How should the framework be structured to prevent any
discrimination and protect stakeholder interest? Please comment with justification.

Treating OTT communication service players as Bulk User of Telecom Services again
amounts to discrimination of data services and hence it should not be allowed. The
question also further assumes that the stakeholders are only the telecom operators and
not the consumers. If only the interests of the telecom operators are protected by
treating services which compete with their traditional services differently rather than
innovating themselves, it would lead to a situation of anti-competitiveness. Telecom
companies have an interest in imposing their control over information and
communication networks, but the price of that would mean stifling competition,
increased barriers for innovation and business and eventually infringe on the
fundamental rights of Indian citizens.

Question 16: What framework should be adopted to encourage India-specific OTT

apps? Please comment with justifications.
Only two steps need to be taken to foster the growth and innovation of India specific
apps and services. First, there should be no additional regulation or licensing and strong
net neutrality laws should be enacted.
These steps will ensure that India continues to have a diverse app economy where
entry barriers are minimal and entrepreneurs can launch their product without having to
worry about discriminatory treatment from the telecom operators. In such a case, the
best product will win which will be beneficial for the customers and the telecom as well
as the Internet industry.
The agnostic nature of internet networks has boosted the growth of Indias app
economy but we risk destroying this fast growing sector by violating net neutrality.

Question 17: If the OTT communication service players are to be licensed, should they
be categorised as ASP or CSP? If so, what should be the framework? Please comment
with justifications.
The question of categorising doesnt even arise, because as mentioned earlier any
extra regulations or licensing is going to be detrimental to the end user. Requiring
licensing of online services and mobile apps under the current telecom framework in
India will have enormous negative consequences. The impossibly onerous burdens
imposed by such licensing would results in many such globally developed services and
apps not being launched in India - and our own startup efforts to develop local versions
of such apps being killed in their early stages. The net results would be decreased
consumer benefit and a massive slowdown in innovation and reduced Make in India
efforts due to the regulatory cost of doing business becoming very high.

Question 18: Is there a need to regulate subscription charges for OTT communication
services? Please comment with justifications.
Subscription charges for such apps need to be allowed to evolve as it would in a pure
market economy. The subscribers (buyers) would want to pay the lowest possible price,
and the app developers/companies (sellers) would want to charge as much as possible,
eventually leading to a fair price.
Subscription charges for such Internet-based services have remained, more or less,
quite low in India, especially because the cost of switching from one service provider to
another is also quite low: This competition will ensure that charges remain fair, without
the need to regulate them, going forward as well. As noted in response to earlier
questions, existing Indian law also applies to online services - which would include the
Consumer Protection Act and other regulations meant to prevent cheating or other
illegal pricing issues.

Question 19: What steps should be taken by the Government for regulation of noncommunication OTT players? Please comment with justifications.
As mentioned earlier, irrespective of what an OTT app is used for (communication,
online shopping, etc) theyre all essentially Internet-based services, and hence there is
no question of creating new regulatory measures.

Question 20: Are there any other issues that have a bearing on the subject discussed?
Here are the additional steps that I urge the TRAI to undertake in the interest of the
public:
- Due to the absence of any formal regulations on net neutrality, TRAI should issue an
order or regulation preventing network neutrality violations by telecom service providers.
Some telecom companies have shown scant respect for the issues presently under
consideration and despite its questionable legality have rolled out various services
which violate network neutrality. Any delay in forming regulations or preventing them in
the interim till the process is complete is only likely to consolidate their status. This is
not only an affront to the Internet users in India but also to the regulatory powers of the
TRAI.
- TRAI is requested to publish all the responses and counter responses to the
consultation, including any other additional material, on its website.

- For better public involvement and awareness, open house debates should be held in
major Indian cities after the consultation process is over.