Net Neutrality: DoT report pushes for disallowing telecom companies’ zero rating plans

[Spacescreamer]

The telecom department's much-awaited report on 'net neutrality' is said to have recommended disallowing the controversial zero rating plans of telcos while proposing that throttling and any sort of prioritisation of Internet traffic should be banned by the government.

"There should be no paid prioritisation which creates discrimination and no degradation of traffic on the internet on the basis of applications, content, services or even the end user," a senior government official privy to the report told ET.

The six-member committee's report together with the telecom regulator's recommendation will form the final basis of the government's policy on net neutrality, a principle that guarantees consumers equal and non-discriminatory access to all data, apps and services on Internet, with no discrimination on the basis of tariffs or speed.

ET had reported in May, that the six member government committee concurred that zero-rating plans which involve commercial arrangements at the back-end violate the idea of net neutrality as they seem to provide discriminatory access to select content.

"The government could, of course, make an exemption for delivery of essential government services such as education and health which might be delivered on a priority basis," the official explained.

The report has further indicated that the policy on net neutrality must promote competition and encourage startup culture in the country, another official told ET. "Competition must be promoted, and not hindered."

It has also stated that ISPs, including telecom operators, should be disallowed from using 'traffic management' as a technique to slow down certain content.

"ISPs, including telecom operators, must be allowed reasonable and legitimate traffic management provided the techniques don't violate the basic principles of net neutrality," the second official said.

A fortnight ago, the US telecom regulator, the Federal Communications Commission had slapped a $100-million fine on AT&T alleging the telecom giant was intentionally slowing down Internet speeds to its unlimited data subscribers after they consumed a certain amount of data. This, the commission said, amounted to a lack of transparency on the company's part. Earlier this year, the FCC, prodded by US President Barack Obama, embraced net neutrality.

The DoT committee, set up in January this year, met over 45 organisations including Facebook, Google, Flipkart, Amazon, Paytm, Viber and Skype and telecom service providers as well as various public interest groups before submitting the report.

Its report comes even as the Trai, after finishing a consultation process, is preparing its own report. The consultation, and launch of Bharti Airtel's Airtel Zero plan under which certain apps can be accessed by users free of charge, with the app makers paying telco for users' access caused a furore, especially on social media.

Bharti Airtel's plan is what is known as a zero rating plan when the content provider pays the telco for providing free access to users. Critics say such a plan gives a clear advantage to bigger content providers who can afford to pay, against those who cannot. The fate of such plans rests on the final government policy.

The first official said that the report has recommended that any policy on net neutrality should ensure interconnection between ISPs, cellular providers and app makers as needed and as per rules, and the government should intervene only when needed.

He added that the panel has also suggested that the government's policy on net neutrality must protect the online privacy of individuals and data protection. "The committee very strongly felt that user information should not be disclosed without consent from the user until there is compelling reason such as a legal requirement to do so".

"In order to implement the policy on net neutrality the government will have to strictly monitor the quality of standards of the networks and even check for congestion," he said.

Telecom operators such as Bharti Airtel, Vodafone and Idea complain growth of apps, especially the ones providing communication services such as WhatsApp and Skype, have been eating into their messaging revenues and now have the potential to hurt their voice revenues, which makes up over 80% of their business. Most telcos said that since the apps offer the same voice services as they do, they must be brought under similar rules, which involve payment of licence fees and meet roll out obligations, as well as security rules.

Supporters of net neutrality though say any move to regulate content providers will stifle innovation. They add that the security rules proposal indirectly seeks to burden innovative application providers by increasing cost of providing services.

Source

 

[Lord Nemesis]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...WhatsApp-Viber-calls/articleshow/48097355.cms

See DoT and TRAI are so in favor of Net Neutrality. They will preserve net neutrality by not only not allowing Zero rated plans but also by regulating WhatsApp and Viber and making OTT service model legitimate and removing all hurdles. This is exactly what so many people have asked for from TRAI. Isn't it?

 

[blr_p]

The actual committee report

Looks like its dated End of may 2015.

 

[RS4]

DOT has released its report on Net Neutrality, except Domestic VOIP they have sided with consumers on all fronts but the main point is what report Government follows, TRAI report is written by the Telecom cartel lawyers and the DOT report was written by consulting everyone and is consumer friendly. Here is the 1.5MB pdf file for DOT report: http://t.co/Nvxg1OQCp9

Online image if you don't want to download:
https://mygov.in/sites/default/files/master_image/Net_Neutrality_Committee_report.pdf

Here is the summary of DOT report:

While the recommendations with context have been provided in various chapters
of the report, same are being summarized below for the sake of convenience-

1. The Committee unhesitatingly recommends that “the core principles of Net
Neutrality must be adhered to.”

2. The international best practices along with core principles of Net Neutrality
will help in formulating India specific Net Neutrality approach. India should
take a rational approach and initiate action in making an objective policy,
specific to the needs of our country. The timing for this is apt, taking into
consideration the exponential growth of content and applications on the
Internet.

3. Innovation and infrastructure have both to be promoted simultaneously
and neither can spread without the other. The endeavor in policy approach
should be to identify and eliminate actions that inhibit the innovation abilities
inherent in an open Internet or severely inhibit investment in infrastructure.

4. The primary goals of public policy in the context of Net Neutrality should
be directed towards achievement of developmental aims of the country by
facilitating “Affordable Broadband”, “Quality Broadband” and “Universal
Broadband” for its citizens.

5. User rights on the Internet need to be ensured so that TSPs/ISPs do not
restrict the ability of the user to send, receive, display, use, post any legal
content, application or service on the Internet, or restrict any kind of lawful
Internet activity or use.

6. OTT application services have been traditionally available in the market
for some time and such services enhance consumer welfare and increase
productivity. Therefore, such services should be actively encouraged and any
impediments in expansion and growth of OTT application services should
be removed.

7. There should be a separation of “application layer” from “network layer” as
application services are delivered over a licensed network.

8. Specific OTT communication services dealing with messaging should not be
interfered with through regulatory instruments.

9. In case of VoIP OTT communication services, there exists a regulatory
arbitrage wherein such services also bypass the existing licensing and
regulatory regime creating a non-level playing field between TSPs and OTT
providers both competing for the same service provision. Public policy
response requires that regulatory arbitrage does not dictate winners and
losers in a competitive market for service provision.

10. The existence of a pricing arbitrage in VoIP OTT communication services
requires a graduated and calibrated public policy response. In case of OTT
VoIP international calling services, a liberal approach may be adopted.
However, in case of domestic calls (local and national), communication
services by TSPs and OTT communication services may be treated similarly
from a regulatory angle for the present. The nature of regulatory similarity,
the calibration of regulatory response and its phasing can be appropriately
determined after public consultations and TRAI’s recommendations to this
effect.

11. For OTT application services, there is no case for prescribing regulatory
oversight similar to conventional communication services.

12. Legitimate traffic management practices may be allowed but should be
“tested” against the core principles of Net Neutrality. General criteria against
which these practices can be tested are as follows:
a) TSPs/ISPs should make adequate disclosures to the users about
their traffic management policies, tools and intervention practices to
maintain transparency and allow users to make informed choices
b) Unreasonable traffic management, exploitative or anti-competitive
in nature may not be permitted.
c) In general, for legitimate network management, application-agnostic
control may be used. However, application-specific control within
the “Internet traffic” class may not be permitted.
d) Traffic management practices like DPI should not be used for unlawful
access to the type and contents of an application in an IP packet.
e) Improper (Paid or otherwise) Prioritization may not be permitted
f) Application-agnostic congestion control being a legitimate requirement
cannot be considered to be against Net Neutrality. However
application-specific control within the “Internet traffic” class may be
against the principles of Net Neutrality.
g) Mechanism to minimize frivolous complaints will be desirable.

13. Traffic management is complex and specialized field and enough capacity
building is needed before undertaking such an exercise.

14. CDN is an arrangement of management of content as a business strategy and
does not interfere with others business. Making available one provider’s CDN
to others on commercial terms is a normal commercial activity. It should at
best be covered under law related to unfair trade practice.

15. Managed services are a necessary requirement for businesses and
enterprises, and suitable exceptions may be made for the treatment of such
services in the Net Neutrality context.

16. This Committee refrains from making any specific recommendation on
search-neutrality, however, flags this issue as a concern for public policy.

17. Tariff plans offered by TSPs/ISPs must conform to the principles of Net
Neutrality set forth in guidelines issued by the Government as Licensor. TRAI
may examine the tariff filings made by TSPs/ISPs to determine whether the
tariff plan conforms to the principles of Net Neutrality.

18. Content and application providers cannot be permitted to act as gatekeepers
and use network operations to extract value in violation of core principles of
Net Neutrality, even if it is for an ostensible public purpose.

19. A clause, requiring licensee to adhere to the core principles of Net Neutrality,
as specified by guidelines issued by the licensor from time to time, should
be incorporated in the license conditions of TSP/ISPs. The guidelines can
describe the principles and conditions of Net Neutrality in detail and provide
applicable criteria to test any violation of the principles of Net Neutrality.

20. New legislation, whenever planned for replacing the existing legal
framework, must incorporate principles of Net Neutrality. Till such time as
an appropriate legal framework is enacted, interim provisions enforceable
through licensing conditions as suggested by the Committee may be the way
forward.

21. National security is paramount, regardless of treatment of Net Neutrality.
The measures to ensure compliance of security related requirements from
OTT service providers, need to be worked out through inter-ministerial
consultations.

22. Suggested enforcement process is as follows:
(i) Core principles of Net Neutrality may be made part of License
conditions and the Licensor may issue guidelines from time to time
as learning process matures.
(ii) Since Net Neutrality related cases would require specialized expertise,
a cell in the DoT HQ may be set up to deal with such cases. In case of
violations, the existing prescribed procedure may be followed. This
would involve two stage process of review and appeal to ensure that
decisions are objective, transparent and just.
(iii) Tariff shall be regulated by TRAI as at present. Whenever a new
tariff is introduced it should be tested against the principles of
Net Neutrality. Post implementation, complaint regarding a tariff
violating principle of Net Neutrality may be dealt with by DoT.
(iv) Net Neutrality issues arising out of traffic management would have
reporting and auditing requirements, which may be performed and
enforced by DoT.
(v) QoS issues fall within the jurisdiction of TRAI. Similarly reporting
related to transparency requirements will need to be dealt with by
TRAI. TRAI may take steps as deemed fit.

23. Enforcing Net Neutrality principle is a new idea and may throw up many
questions and problems as we go along. For this purpose, an oversight
process may be set up by the government to advise on policies and processes,
review guidelines, reporting and auditing procedures and enforcement of
rules.

24. Capacity building through training, institution building and active engagement
with stakeholders is essential. In order to deal with the complexities of the
new digital world, a think-tank with best talent may also be set up.

 

[ankushv]

So how much is Failtel paying Do$t to charge us for voip now .
No improvement in any services by any operator and you want to charge for more ??
3 g networks are for namesake . 3g speeds never achieved .
Call drops are frequent ...no one cares for us consumers .
Btw what's with 28 day recharges ?
Since when was a month 28 days ?
A month should always be a month . Be it 30 or 31 days .

 

[blr_p]

So how much is Failtel paying Do$t to charge us for voip now .

ott services are unregulated as they should be and the TSP are regulated. This creates an unfair situation. i would prefer the govt ease regulations on the TSP's but that isn't going to happen. So given that the bulk of internet users are mobile and 88% of mobile networks are private they get a say in the argument.

Despite this the committee has come down on the side of 'net neutrality'. So they have defused the situation. This is a recommendation for now, what actually gets notified remains to be seen.

No improvement in any services by any operator and you want to charge for more ??

they're not going to invest more unless they can show a return. Right now those returns are not looking good. International calls are thankfully not going to be regulated so like the govt that lost that segment over ten years ago due to their high & asymmetric pricing, only reason is because the ITU pressured them so now even the mobile operators are going to lose it.

3 g networks are for namesake . 3g speeds never achieved .

overcrowding. I only use 3g if necessary. its no longer discretionary as i would have preferred. Getting 4G isn't a good idea as you will finish your quota much faster. 4G is for unlimited plans otherwise stick with 3g or 2g. That is what everyone does and these dont handle congestion very well.

Call drops are frequent ...no one cares for us consumers .

blame the long list of restrictions and RWA's who prevent the erecting of cell towers towers whenever & wherever they can due to radiation. When this country's standards are already tighter than elsewhere. i find it hippocritical that people complain about call drops and this campaign on ndtv when they conveniently ignore and don't want to talk about why its happening.

Btw what's with 28 day recharges ?
Since when was a month 28 days ?
A month should always be a month . Be it 30 or 31 days .

heh, yeah, used to a month then 28 now 21 days. The reason is they expect to lose on voice and are increasing data prices to make up for the difference. How many will pay, i can afford their rates even if they increase them but am unwilling to do so. I expect others will do the same. So that means falling revenues for the telcos in the future. Already 96% of the market is pay as you go.

Not a good picture, they will prefer to invest abroad than in India What about foreign players. Vodafone got boxed around with the last administration. This one promises it won't do it but will not give anything in writing. So foreign players are wary about expanding in India.

 

[Crapmypants]

vodafone didn't get boxed around enough. check out the specifics of the case and you will see it's a clear case of tax dodging.
Indian telcos won't invest abroad because they are so useless in quality.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

ott services are unregulated as they should be and the TSP are regulated. This creates an unfair situation. i would prefer the govt ease regulations on the TSP's but that isn't going to happen. So given that the bulk of internet users are mobile and 88% of mobile networks are private they get a say in the argument.

So you think customers being charged extra for use of bandwidth that they already paid for is fair? I am fine with them having regulations for VOIP if that's what they are arguing for, but lets see if they are fine with offering VOIP plans without any additional cost over that of internet bandwidth (which already has a lot of margin to cover cost of enforcing any regulations and still make a sizable profit)

They won't be fine with that and they would be the first to argue against any regulations on VOIP which would cost them money and that's because what they are arguing for is not regulation or equal treatment with regular phone services, but the ability get more money from customers without spending anything extra over what they are spending now.

Also don't forget that their definition of OTT does not just include VOIP, messaging services or video, but all kinds of social media like facebook or twitter. Basically, they can categorize anything that people widely use as an OTT service and charge extra for that.

 

[blr_p]

vodafone didn't get boxed around enough. check out the specifics of the case and you will see it's a clear case of tax dodging.

That's not what i heard. The previous govt went out of its way to re-enact laws to trap them. retroactive taxes which is nonsense.

Indian telcos won't invest abroad because they are so useless in quality.

Airtel buying zain to operate in africa ? i think they have sold it now.

According to their yearly report airtel has a presence in 27 countries (!)

 

[blr_p]

So you think customers being charged extra for use of bandwidth that they already paid for is fair? I am fine with them having regulations for VOIP if that's what they are arguing for, but lets see if they are fine with offering VOIP plans without any additional cost over that of internet bandwidth (which already has a lot of margin to cover cost of enforcing any regulations and still make a sizable profit)

Whatsapp specific plans, they tried it but got beaten back. I see the govt here trying to get a cut of the business. thing is how reliable are these services anyway, voip would be better.

They won't be fine with that and they would be the first to argue against any regulations on VOIP which would cost them money and that's because what they are arguing for is not regulation or equal treatment with regular phone services, but the ability get more money from customers without spending anything extra over what they are spending now.

Also don't forget that their definition of OTT does not just include VOIP, messaging services or video, but all kinds of social media like facebook or twitter. Basically, they can categorize anything that people widely use as an OTT service and charge extra for that.

if all you want is whatsapp or facebook the plans they offered were cheaper than 3g services. Whether it stays that away is an open question. The tendency is to offer something cheap then you see the duration start to get less, 1 month becomes 28 days and then 21 and so on.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

That's not what i heard. The previous govt went out of its way to re-enact laws to trap them. retroactive taxes which is nonsense.

Yes, the case against Vodafone was originally thrown out by the supreme court. It was an obvious money grab attempt by Indian Govt and Tax Dept (Like the Nokia case) that failed. So the Govt tried to make amendments to the laws and tried to argue for retrospective taxes again which as per my knowledge has been thrown out by the supreme court.

There is obviously a lot of debate about why it is or it is not a deliberate tax dodging attempt, but personally, I thought it was an absurd attempt at trying to obtain money without even having the legal foundation to do so.

 

[blr_p]

Yes, the case against Vodafone was originally thrown out by the supreme court.

And the consolation offered by this govt is they did not file an appeal in that instance.

It was an obvious money grab attempt by Indian Govt and Tax Dept (Like the Nokia case) that failed. So the Govt tried to make amendments to the laws and tried to argue for retrospective taxes again which as per my knowledge has been thrown out by the supreme court.

I heard that they have not removed laws that could allow them to try this trick in the future. We just have Jaitley's word. Well investments are not just for the duration of this govt they are a long process, what happens if another govt comes in.

There is no adequate answer to that and i find it strange that this govt that is allegedly investor & business friendly cannot offer one.

There is obviously a lot of debate about why it is or it is not a deliberate tax dodging attempt, but personally, I thought it was an absurd attempt at trying to obtain money without even having the legal foundation to do so.

It has something to do with share price evaluations which the govt alleged was being used to dodge taxes. companies will do whatever they can when ever possible to achieve that. They must have found a loophole and the govt panicked that others would do the same and decided to make an example out of it. This bought them time and created an air of uncertainty that keeps the other companies in line but at the same time discourages further investment.

 

[Crapmypants]

That's not what i heard. The previous govt went out of its way to re-enact laws to trap them. retroactive taxes which is nonsense.

When they bought hutch they paid via shares of a subsidiary company. It was later found that the subsidiary's shares were deliberately undervalued to reduce the tax liability. Also, the transaction was conducted in the Cayman Islands.

Airtel buying zain to operate in africa ? i think they have sold it now.

Why do you think they pulled out after spending over $10 billion.

According to their yearly report airtel has a presence in 27 countries (!)

This doesn't mean that they have full fledged services in 27 countries. they may have just bought stakes in local companies (which is what they normally do).

 

[Lord Nemesis]

When they bought hutch they paid via shares of a subsidiary company. It was later found that the subsidiary's shares were deliberately undervalued to reduce the tax liability. Also, the transaction was conducted in the Cayman Islands.

The company that held Essar-Hutch assets had its registered office in Cayman islands and it also held few other assets other than Hutch. Vodafone acquired the entire assets of this company and obviously the transaction was conducted in Cayman islands. Indian tax dept wanted Vodafone to pay capital gains tax on the entire value of the transaction which included assets other than those in India.

Capital gains tax liability is on the seller who got money in return or shares or other investments, not the purchaser. Usually if the transaction had happened between two entities in India, the purchaser would have been required to withhold the capital gains tax when making the payment to the seller and deposit it as tax. Since the transaction happened outside the country between two entities that were located outside India, this was not required and not done. So Indian tax dept not only asked for a tax that is not applicable on the transaction, but they were are also making the wrong party liable for the tax. The investors that held the hutch-Essar assets were the ones liable for the tax. Furthermore, as per my understanding, the payment was done in terms of shares, not cash, so capital gains should not have been applicable.

The supreme court refused to look take the a skewed view that was taken by the tax dept and instead chose to go by the law and sided with Vodafone.