FAQs: Internet Licensing and Net Neutrality

An abridged version of the TRAI Consultation Paper is here

On the basis of that paper, please ask questions in the comments here (on this
same page), and well respond by adding the question and the answer.
Can you copy stuff from this document? This is a public document, no
copyright (under a CC BY license): Journalists and others can share, copy, adapt, remix,
transform, as long as you stay true to what is written, and attribute the statements to
their author. (Anonymous Commenters to be attributed as Anonymous Commenters).
Tweet to Indian startups to support Net Neutrality
Anonymous Commenter: watch this video to understand the concept of
Net Neutrality.
Help file RTIs to find out who lobbied the TRAI
Note: These FAQs have a pro Net Neutrality and anti Internet licensing stand.
The Easy Questions
Question: What is going on?
Answer (@nixxin): Indias telecom regulator TRAI has begun a consultation process (read the
paper) to decide three things:
1. Should there be licensing of Whatsapp, WeChat, Ola, Uber, Line, Viber, Hike,
Skype (communication Internet companies), and Flipkart, Snapdeal, Paytm, Saavn,
Gaana, YouTube, Redbus, Naukri, Makemytrip (non-communication Internet
companies ) in India or not?
2. Should there be licensing for only communication Internet companies, but
not for non-communication?
3. Should telecom operators in India (Airtel, Idea, Vodafone, Uninor, Reliance
Communications , Reliance Jio) be allowed to do traffic shaping and use differential
pricing:
a. Slow down some sites/apps and speed up others
b. Make some sites/apps/types of services more expensive,
some sites/apps/types of services cheaper. Slice up the Internet into packs,
so that instead of buying as per kb or mb, you are buying, say, a Whatsapp pack,
a Twitter pack, a Flipkart pack.
c. Create gateways so you get only some part of the Internet.
Question: How will it impact me as a user?
1. If there is licensing of Internet companies:
a. If it had been there a few years ago, Whatsapp would not have
been available in India unless they bought a license from the Indian government.
The next big thing to come out globally (or even the little sites and services only
you and a few others know and love), would have to buy a license to be made
available in India.

b. The next great idea from an Indian startup will not be available to
you: it would be available to the rest of the world first, and then later in India if the
government gives them a license.
c. You might have to buy a separate packs for different licensed
apps or services.
2. If there is licensing of communications services only:
a. If Whatsapp refuses to buy a license, it will not be available in
India.
b. If Paytm or Quikr dont buy a license, then you, as a buyer, will not
be able to chat with a merchant via their platform. If Goqii doesnt buy a license,
then you wont be able to chat with a fitness trainer via their app. If Facebook
doesnt buy a license, then Facebook might be available, but Facebook
Messenger will not. Anything that uses messaging and voice will need to buy a
license, or the Indian government will block it.
Anonymous Commenter: Should apps, whose main function is not
communication, be allowed to bundle communication functionality inside them?
c. AND: the TRAI views Ola and Uber as messaging apps with
geolocation. Seriously. Read 3.1.1 here. Maybe theyre right: you are messaging
a driver. Theyll need to buy a license.
d. If there is speed discrimination: Telecom operators complain
about how much bandwidth video takes up. So they might slow down YouTube
so that you can access other sites or get YouTube to pay them to keep the same
speed or make it faster. Why should you care? Because a Spuul or an Ogle
might not be able to do this (Read this), and might never work for you because
theyll be too slow. YouTube wins. Also, if YouTube is made faster, the rest of your
connection slows down a little, because of limited bandwidth. YouTube has done
deals with Airtel before (Read this).
e. If there is price discrimination: Did you like it when Airtel made
VoIP (Skype, Viber) more expensive? Today you dont really think about how
much you pay to access a site or an app because youre paying to access the
Internet, in kb and mb. Airtel wants to change this. So a different price for
shopping, maybe a different price for Flipkart and Amazon. Instead of paying a
monthly fee, now youre paying to access each service separately, not knowing
how much that will cost you. Sometimes telecom operators will increase the price
of video separately, sometimes theyll increase the price of messaging. You wont
really know how much youre paying. Youll start using a few things less (because
more expensive), and a few things more (cheaper). Some big companies
(Google, Facebook, Twitter) might even pay telecom operators.

c. If there are gateways: Youll get limited access to the Internet. A few sites. On
Internet.org, you get Cleartrip, but not MakeMyTrip, so you cant really compare which is
cheaper. You get Cricinfo but not Cricbuzz. You get Bing but not Google Search. You get
OLX but not Quikr. To use a gaming analogy: the Internet is a free roam environment.
You can go wherever you want. Would you be okay with a gated experience that tells
you what can and cannot use? If not, why should those people who are just coming
online not get to see the full Internet, the best and the worst of it?
Question: But whats wrong with Facebooks Internet.org? Why cant people get free Internet if
they want it?
Answer: You have to understand the impact it has on the Internet ecosystem, and the impact
that has on your choice:
a. Internet.org isnt free Internet. Its free Facebook + a few sites. You get a
limited experience of the Internet, and Facebook (or the telecom operators) define which
sites are available on it. As explained above, you have fewer choices, and Facebook
plays king-maker.
b. Facebook wants to become the gateway to the mobile web, so that you
access everything via it. The more powerful Facebook becomes, the more difficult it will

be for you to find things it doesnt want to. As a publisher, Facebook reduced the reach
of my news stories, trying to decide what you should see in your newsfeed, even if you
like my page. If Facebook becomes the primary access point on mobile, I will have to
pay them to be seen (they have a Boost Post option), or my site will die. Google is still
better, because search is based on your intent: you can still randomly land on my page
via search. Also read: What Facebook Doesnt Show You. Anonymous Commenter: Also,
Google has been sued multiple times for having manipulated search results to rank it's
own inferior content above others (Link).
c. There are two definitions of the word free. Would you want a free (zero cost)
Internet, if the Internet wasnt free (as in freedom)?
d. Airtel did the same thing with their One touch Internet. If this is allowed,
everyone will have their own gateway. So users will have a different list of services on
Airtel, Idea, Vodafone, Tata Docomo, Uninor, MTS. Maybe even landline ISPs will do
this. Maybe governments looking to offer free WiFi will do this. The Internet, when
accessed from India, will never be the same again. Remember Airtel Live, where you
got a portal with limited access? You want the Internet to be like THAT?
e. (Anonymous Commenter): Zero-rating is sometimes viewed as a marketing tactic used by
ISPs and Internet Companies to push to users apps/services which serve vested interests or
could be directly/indirectly owned by Telcos stakeholders. They basically play with consumer's
penchant for free stuff to 'psychologically' reduce their choices and reduce viability chances of
competing alternatives in the long run. Internet.org is viewed as strategy by Facebook to
penetrate developing markets to boost user base and minimize future competition (Link).
Tim Berners Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web wrote:

Of course, [net neutrality] is not just about blocking and throttling. It is

also about stopping positive discrimination, such as when one
internet operator favours one particular service over another. If we
dont explicitly outlaw this, we hand immense power to telcos and
online service operators. In effect, they can become gatekeepers
able to handpick winners and the losers in the market and to favour
their own sites, services and platforms over those of others. This
would crowd out competition and snuff out innovative new services
before they even see the light of day.
Question: So Ill only use home, office or public WiFi/Broadband. Or mostly.
Answer: Not everyone has that option. Why shouldnt they get access to the same Internet that
you do? Secondly, once the TRAI allows this, what stops ISPs from doing the same thing?
Remember this model can very truly be applied to the broadband as well. So WiFi may also
have limited connectivity for lesser value packs, with some sites or apps blocked.

Question: The TRAI wont let this happen. Arent they supposed to protect consumer
interest?
Answer: Read the paper here (pdf), or its shortened version here (Googe Doc). The paper
mostly presents a telecom industry point of view. Note that the TRAI document mentions Also,
the TRAI appears to have decided to do something at least, find a middle ground, which might
involve some licensing or allow for some Net Neutrality violations. Screenshot from the
consultation paper:

This means there might be some regulation and some traffic shaping and discrimination. It
just wants to figure out how much of this should be allowed.
Also, the TRAI mentions in the paper that this was based on a seminar held in Delhi in August
2014. I was there. Lots of Internet companies spoke up against this (we covered most of it), but
their point of view is not represented in the paper.
Also, the TRAI Chairman said then that Over the last 6-8 months, a number of CEOs from the
telecom sectors have come and spoken to me about the impending problem of OTT. Lobbyists
from the COAI have been pushing the TRAI to do this (read this). Theyve finally got this
consultation out.
Question: Yeah, but the TRAI still protects consumer/public interest, no?

Answer: Some other statements from the consultation paper on why the Internet needs
regulation, licensing and/or traffic shaping. You be the judge.
1. Free speech:

2. Big data is bad.

3. Children need to avoid file sharing, chat rooms and online gaming

4. Health apps need regulation

Sunil Abraham: Health Apps are subject to all the regulations of Section 43A of the IT Act (at
the very minimum)
5. Restaurant locating apps are a security threat

6. Snapchat's privacy features which are appreciated by users are considered dangerous
by TRAI

Anonymous commenter: It should be pointed out that users greatly appreciate the ephemeral
nature of Snapchat because it respects their privacy.
Anonymous Commenter: SMS and MMS are a security disaster for the user. Read here.
7. You can be manipulated:

Question: How will it impact me as a startup?

Answer: Simple:
1. Competition: Only the big ones with deep pockets will be able to strike deal with
telcos to make themselves available on their networks. A startup by, say four college

kids, who have invested their own money to build the company, will not have the
wherewithal to cut deals with each and every telco. There will be no level playing field.
And many genuinely innovative companies will lose out because of this.
2. Time to market (Anonymous commentor): Time to Market will greatly increase. A
startup product will have to be evaluated by every Telco out there. Each will have it's
own complications.
3. Conflict of Interest with telecom companies (Anonymous commentor): How
will Airtel deal with an mobile/online music streaming company which competes with its
own offering Wynk. How will it deal with a messaging startup which competes with Hike,
which Bharti Enterprises (Airtels parent company) has a stake in? How will Snapdeal be
dealt with by Reliance Jio, since Reliance Industries owns Homeshop18?
4. Agility: if VoIP or messaging is a different pack or price from regular Internet
telephony, and a startup wants to integrate it into its offering, will it need a license from
the Indian government, or a telecom operator? The telecom operators have an executive
who manages vendor relations, called a Supply Chain Manager. Startups will not
have the ability to chop and change and reimagine consumer experiences.
The Difficult Questions
Question: What is the rationale for not letting telcos use their pipes to maximize their
business goals. If Levers can sell the same shampoo for different prices in different
markets; or if Medianama can have different rates for different advertisers. (Alok Mittal on
Facebook)
Answer(@nixxin):
1. Public utilities are regulated differently: Telecom operators license a public
resource: spectrum. In the same way that we regulate how coal mines draw coal, or how
toll booths charge cars that go through them, we have to regulate how telecom
companies charge users. Levers and MediaNama are private companies, their
resources and products are not public property. Differential charging is fine: heavy users
(like Heavy Traffic Vehicles) are charged on the basis of their usage. Thats why you
have expensive data plans and cheaper data plans. You dont stop each car, ask where
theyre going, and charge accordingly. You dont stop each vehicle, find out the value of
the goods theyre carrying, and charge accordingly. Im all for businesses getting the
freedom to do what they want, but spectrum, and hence Internet access, is licensed
public property, not the private property of telecom operators.
Structurally, there is also significant market concentration (a point made below).
Broadband and Internet access is oligopolistic in nature, and telecom operators work like
cartels. Thats why Mobile Number Portability is great, because it gives you the freedom.
However, not all networks are equal, not all spectrum availability is equal. To protect
consumer rights, and indeed (a point made below), the freedom to do business online,
regulation has to protect neutrality online, not allow the platform to discriminate and play
king-maker. (thanks to this tweet for reminding me about this point)

A point made here: Levers doesnt price shampoo differently based on whether youre
shampooing the hair or the beard.
Anonymous commentar adds: You buy "Quality of Access". But once you have access
you should have the freedom to do whatever with it without further interruption,
restriction, influence or coercion through unfair tactics from the "Access Provider".
There's a question later "I already buy multiple prepaid packs. How is this different? I'm
confused and need more simple references".
The answer to that can be referred here.
Conclusion: You can buy a sedan, an SUV, a hatchback, a luxury car, a sports car, a
truck , a bus or whatever. But once you buy that vehicle, the car maker has NO say in
what, where, why, when, how you use the car.
2. Impact on the Internet ecosystem: For the growth of the Internet (the Digital
India goal), you need a stable platform, and for access to be open. Startups need the
stability of the knowledge that just because they launch a service, it will not be slowed
down, blocked, sliced into a separate package that a user will have to buy from a
telecom operator, and a big competitor like Facebook or Google will not pay off a
telecom operator to make their own service free, while a startup cant afford to make its
own service for free. A level playing field. If the Internet loses this, consumers will not be
able to try the latest global service just because they dont have an interconnect or
carriage agreement with an Indian telecom operator. Indian startups will switch to
markets where the laws allow more freedom. I know I would, if I needed to (though, I
cant because India is my only market, and Ive always only wanted it that way).
You dont know what youve got till its gone. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.
(watch)

Is this the Internet that you want? (via)

@adityamishra: I agree that TSPs should be allowed to maximise their business goals ie
Revenues, profits etc. They have a right to it as much as any business. But their right needs to
stop where it infringes upon the rights of other businesses. TSPs have a right to charge more for
their data service if SMS usage is going down and data usage is picking up. But why should
they charge more or less for specific services?
I think these two are two different questions and need to be discussed as such. The first one a
decision internal to Telcos. They decide the price of their product. The second one is about
deciding the end user pricing of someone elses product. Why should any one market player
have that power over other market players? To extend the analogy given in the question - does

HUL get to control the price of shampoo sold by P&G? (Actually the analogy is wrong because
HUL is a producer and not a distributor).

Question: Does charging all Internet companies 50 paise/GB to boost investment in

internet infrastructure violate net neutrality?
Answer
@nixxin: It does. The Internet is a two sided market: on one side, you have users like you and
me, and the other has Internet companies (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Whatsapp, Twitter). We
use the connection provided by telecom operators to reach the Internet services. From a
revenue generation perspective, the Internet access has a mechanism similar which is one
sided: we pay telecom operators to access the Internet. This allows kids in college to create
apps without having to sign an agreement with a telecom operator, make money by finding
buyers or users for their app. Changing that model changes the principle on which basis the
Internet has operated for years, and adds a layer of bureaucracy to the whole thing. Imagine
having to stand outside a telecom operators office, or filling up a vendor form, just to allow
people to access your app or service. Its not about Rs 0.50 per GB.
Its about the principles that have allowed the Internet to flourish to be changed just because
telecom operators are seeing users prefer a more open and democratic ecosystem. In telecom,
you paid for how much you used, and what you use. Online, you only pay for how much you
use, not what you use. Look at the vibrancy of a more open ecosystem.
I started MediaNama in 2 weeks, and were now 6 years old. I paid Rs 500 to register a domain
name, Rs 500 a month for hosting, and a free Wordpress blog. If I wanted to start a Mobile VAS
company (ringtone, ringback tone, mobile radio etc), I would have to go to each telecom
operator to give me a short code, and convince each to keep renewing it every year. Telecom
operators are losing control over content because of the Internet, and the TRAI paper says that
too. Also, this is like charging Hafta (their pound of flesh). As an Internet company, Im running a
shop and I have consumers. The telcos wants to charge me for the consumer using a road to
come to my store?
Anonymous commenter: Telcos should have NO control over the flow of content because they
were never responsible for its creation, or of the creation tools.
Question: Carriage fees are norm in cable why not apply that to telecom? (source)
Answer:
@nixxin: Carriage fees were extortion in the cable business. Because TV channels make
money by advertising, DTH and cable companies refused to carry their channels without paying.
The TRAI legalized this. Just because it exists in Cable doesnt mean it should exist in the
Internet space. Small startups will not be in a position to negotiate with telecom operators.
(Anonymous commenter adds: That is why starting a TV channel is very costly. Otherwise,
comedy groups like AIB, TVF and EIC wouldve been able to start TV channels easily.) Also TV
channels require government approval. We would have never had the vibrant video ecosystem
we have online if it was regulated.

Something like this happened in Mobile VAS (wallpapers, ringtones, hello tunes, Mobile Radio
etc.). In that case, 4-5 odd companies dominated the entire Mobile VAS space and there was
corruption in the telecom operator ranks because someone had the power to allow or disallow a
service. Smaller companies were asked to come via them. The Internet is open, Mobile is not
used to being open.
Imagine if Viber, WeChat and Line, all messaging and voice calling apps,, were not available for
you to try out because as a messaging service, they needed to get approval from Vodafone,
Idea, Airtel, Uninor etc. The rest of the world will have it. You wont. Like the latest movies, we
would be waiting for the latest apps to be made available in India. Imagine if Flipkart had to
stand in queue to get a license to sell books online before it started: that was a time when no
one believed that ecommerce in India. Small startups will not be in a position to negotiate with
telecom operators.
would be big. Look at it now.
Question: Net Neutrality-> Higher prices-> slower adoption of mobile internet! (source)
Answer
@nixxin: Three things:
1. What is the Internet you want? Do you want a limited, closed Internet where you
cant explore anything, even if it is free? Would you want a muft (zero cost) Internet if it
wasnt a mukt (as in freedom) Internet, one that allows you to explore, learn,
collaborate? Do we want to give those coming online an inferior Internet?
2. Prices will come down when there is real competition in the telecom industry.
Right now, theyre all collaborating on this issue, and there is no competition. Airtel, Idea
and Vodafone have 66% of the active Mobile users in India, and a majority of the Mobile
Internet users. Have you seen how they raise prices together, one after the other?
Mobile prices only came down when there was competition, when Tata Docomo brought
in per-second-billing, because there was real competition.
3. India has poor Internet infrastructure. It ranks 122 globally in Broadband
Penetration. Connectivity sucks. If there is abundance of connectivity, prices will come
down. We have no wireline internet because BSNL and MTNL havent been unbundled.
The government doesnt sell spectrum to increase mobile and Internet access, only to
pay for its expenditure. This is why we have unreliable, crappy wireline speeds, and
unreliable crappy wireless Internet.

Question: What is legal definition of net neutrality and what should be role of TRAI/ govt
in your view because we know government intervention can have serious negative
effects?
Answer
@nixxin: There is no precise or universal legal definition for network neutrality internationally
and it is not defined in any convention. It is most commonly identified by a set of principles

which have been adopted by several countries in different ways. It is developing as an area of
regulation however India with the world's third largest base of Internet users require it urgently.
The Internet is built on principles of openness and freedom. At the core of this is nondiscrimination at an ISP level. So, three principles of Net Neutrality which have emerged and
are reflected in some foreign legislation including the most recent order of the FCC in Open
Internet include:
1. No discrimination in terms of speed: no throttling (slowing something down,
like Comcast did with Netflix), or speeding it up (like Airtel did with YouTube).
2. No discrimination in terms of access: no gateways like Facebooks
Internet.org, which only includes a few websites and plays kingmaker. No blocking of
certain sites just because they compete with you (for example, some operator could
block Saavn.com because it has its own music service :D).
3. No discrimination in terms of cost: access to one service should not be more
expensive than another. Today, when you access something online, you dont really think
of how much it costs you to access, because its all the same. This means that startups
compete on the basis of product, not on the basis of cost of access. If there is
discrimination in terms of cost, then startups will have to queue up outside a telecom
operators doorstep, and the telecom operator will play kingmaker. Companies with
deeper pockets will pay to make their services free, and this way, kill competition
because other services will be paid.
@aparatbar: Timothy Wu, Professor of Law, Columbia Law School who first coined the term,
network neutrality, stated in his original proposal in 2002 that, As a general description, the
proposal would strike a balance: it would forbid broadband operators, absent a showing of
harm, from restricting what users do with their internet connection, while giving the operator
general freedom to manage bandwidth consumption and other matters of local concern.
(source)
Anonymous Commenter: Net Neutrality concept originates from "Common Carriage / Carrier
Law". "Network neutrality means applying well-established "common carrier" rules to the
Internet in order to preserve its freedom and openness. Common carriage prohibits the owner of
a network, that holds itself out to all-comers, from discriminating against information by halting,
slowing, or otherwise tampering with the transfer of any data (except for legitimate network
management purposes such as easing congestion or blocking spam)." (Source) and (Video)

Question: Which countries have a good model to deal with this?

Answer

@aparatbar: At present there are several countries which are models of network neutrality legislation.
These are segregated on the basis of strong, moderate and proposals.
Country

Legislation

Key features

Brazil
(strong)

Marco Civil da
Internet
adopted
on
April 23, 2014.
(link)

Art. 9 of the Act guarantees network neutrality in Brazil. It

states that the party responsible for the transmission,
switching or routing has the duty to process, on an isonomic
basis, any data packages, regardless of content, origin and
destination, service, terminal or application. The aim of this
provision is to prevent operators from charging higher rates for
accessing content that uses greater bandwidth, like video
streaming or voice communication services.

Ecuador
(moderate)

The
Telecommunica
tions Act
December 17,
2014
(link)

Clause 18 of Art. 22 dictates that subscribers, customers and

users of telecommunications services shall be entitled to, [...]
access any application or authorized service available on the
internet network. Providers may not block, interfere,
discriminate, hinder or restrict the right of its users or
subscribers to use, send, receive or offer any content,
application, development or legal service through Internet or
networks in general or other forms of information and
communication technologies, nor may they limit the right of a
user or subscriber to incorporate or use any class of
instruments, devices or gadgets on the network, provided they
are legal. However, this has been recently limited by an
amendment in Article 64 which permits the establishment of
Tariff Plans (link).

Mexico
(strong)

The
Federal
Telecommunica
tions and Radio
Broadcasting
Act Adopted on
July 14, 2014
[link]

The law adopts the following principles, (i) free election; (ii)
non-discrimination; (iii) privacy; (iv) transparency; (v) traffic
management; (vi) quality; and (vii) sustained infrastructure
development [link].

Netherland
s
(strong)

Network
Neutrality
provisions
adopted
on
June 14, 2011
[link]

The Network Neutrality provisions are contained in Article 7.4a

of the Telecommunications Act which mandated that,
Providers of public electronic communication networks which
deliver internet access services and providers of internet
access services do not hinder or slow down applications and
services on the internet.... (link)

Chile

Question: Government maximises revenues when it auctions spectrum, whats wrong in

telecom companies trying to do the same? Internet is not a public utility, American courts
have in the past struck down FCC regulation on Internet companies saying the same.
Answer
@nixxin: I would argue that the Internet is a public utility. Spectrum is a public resource, leased
to telecom operators for a certain period of time (20 years). That doesnt necessarily give them
the right to control whether we can access some services and not others, pay more for
accessing some services, not others, have some services accessed at a higher speed than
others. We pay for access to certain MB or KB, and that has been the norm. Look at how it has
benefited us: is there any space as open, collaborative, competitive and vibrant as the Internet?
Businesses and companies are free to operate whatever services they want, reimagine
consumer experiences. Features become full businesses. That freedom will get constrained by
this approach to maximise revenues by restricting. Telecom operators should be seeking to
maximise revenues by making us use more of the Internet. Theyre slicing the pie instead of
growing the pie.
Most core services - communications, commerce - run on digital infrastructure, and it brings in
competitiveness and efficiency. The moment you find that you cant do some things, the Internet
will break. For example: if there is a license for a messaging app in India, would you be able to
chat with merchants on a Quikr or Paytm app to negotiate rates? If there is a separate license
for video, and you dont have one, you might download a health app that has both a t rainer and
exercise videos. You might not be able to interact with the trainer, or watch videos, unless you
have a separate license for apps, a separate license for video and one for messaging. This will
break the Internet into data packs. Dont believe me? Read what Airtel said: We are trying to
change the vocabulary away from megabytes and gigabytes in to songs and videos (source)
and what Uninor did: here.
Anonymous commenter: In 20 years, Internet connectivity will be a core fabric for everyday
necessities of life, in the same way that electricity is part of the core fabric of everyday
life.Whether it be financial inclusion, health, governance, education, entertainment,
communication. When electricity was being rolled out, if we saw it as being offered differentially
for different services (lower cost electricity for Reliance home appliances, less reliable
connection when you use a third party electrical tool), it wouldnt be as pervasive and reliable as
it is today. The Internet is at that same crossroads, between between a tool to connect a limited
subset of services, or becoming a backbone for how our country evolves, innovates, and
operates for the next 50 years.

Question: One of the arguments that has surfaced is that differential pricing is necessary
for telcos to recover the high costs they bear during spectrum auctions and also to
improve their networks. Without differential pricing and revenue sharing, there is no
apparent incentive for telcos to upgrade their networks. What's your response to that?

Answer
@nixxin: Thats what happens in a market where there is insufficient competition. Like I said
earlier, the top 3 telecom operators have 66% of the active users, the top 4 have 69%. The top
three ISPs have over 95% of the ISP market. If we had more telecom operators, more ISPs,
they would be competing for our money. Telecom operators can make more money, and will
make more money with data, if they focus on growing the market, not slicing the market. Its
been growing:

(source behind paywall)

If that kind of growth isnt incentive to grow networks, then I dont know what is. India has over
200 million mobile Internet connections. Airtels mobile Internet base has grown 2.65 times in
two years.
Also, are you trying to tell me they didnt do their calculations before the auctions, as to how
much they can afford? Uninor didnt win any spectrum because it became expensive. They
decided to bail. Airtel, Idea, Vodafone, Jio, Tata Tele continued. How is it the Internets fault?
Point is, they are going to be forced to improve networks because consumer demand is
growing, and they are making more money. Why should the Internet industry, without whom they
wouldnt have a data business, subsidise this? Telecom operators are trying to change the way
ISPs have always operated, trying to convert the Internet into a telecom service.
Question: Could TRAI and Telecom Operators already have a deal? (source)
Answer

@nixxin: The TRAI held a seminar on April 5th 2014 in Delhi, which I attended, where the
Chairman Rahul Khullar said that telecom operator CEO have been meeting him often and
complaining about Internet companies being valued very high, while telecom operators provide
them access to consumers (in actuality, telecom operators provide consumers access to the
Internet.
Anonymous Commenter: A car maker CANNOT say that it provides shopping malls access to
buyers and vice-versa. It just provides the buyers access to a "Means of Transport".
).
Lots of Internet companies (Rediff, Hungama, Paytm, Google) spoke against any intention to
license the Internet services there. Weve documented it here. In the regulation paper, there is
hardly any information on what Internet companies said at the seminar, only what telecom
companies said.
The first half of the paper has a heavy slant towards telecom operators, and raises issues over
which TRAI has zero jurisdiction (copyright, national security, freedom of speech). I wouldn't say
that this battle is lost, but the TRAI has is going to find some middle ground. Internet licensing
was never a part of that discussion, but has been brought in into this paper. It might be a red
herring: it could be that we are glad that the TRAI doesnt have licensing for the Internet, but
allows telecom operators to violate net neutrality by allowing toll-boothing, traffic shaping, zero
rating etc. (explained here) Or it might be that Internet companies are okay with Whatsapp,
Viber and other communications services being licensed, but not ecommerce or publishing.
Either way, the Internet will not remain the way it currently is. There can and should be no
middle ground, in my opinion.
Question: You say telecom companies will abuse net neutrality due to lack of competition
and cartelisation, but govt enforced rules may lead to underinvestment in infrastructure,
lack of innovation. Doesnt lack of competition theory apply there too, which will further
decrease network quality?
Answer
@nixxin: Not sure of how lack of competition applies here, and if there is a cartel in operation,
the government needs to step in and break cartels. We havent seen less investment in
infrastructure in the current scenario, and that is the scenario we want to retain.
Question: Why dont you trust telecoms to maintain current scenario voluntarily?
Answer
@nixxin: We cant trust telecom operators to retain current scenario voluntarily because of what
they have said and done. Reliance Communications and Facebook have partnered to offer a
gated Internet with Internet.org. RCOM and Twitter, Airtel and Google. Airtel tried differential
pricing for VoIP. Check what they have been saying here and here.
Question: But airtel backed off due to consumer backlash, isnt that best kind of market
regulating itself? I think market forces wont let abuse of net neutrality work.

Answer
@nixxin: Read Airtels statement. It said it backed off because the TRAI said it would do a
consultation, like it has. The market didnt regulate Airtel. They got what they wanted: a
consultation. I wrote about this here. They now want to use this consultation paper to legitimise
their business model where they will charge for selected apps on a differential basis.
@mbchandar literally airtel forced TRAI by playing a drama. now what airtel has done will soon
become real if TRAI sides with telcos. airtel followed by others.
Anonymous Commenter: In fact, TRAI had earlier (in Aug, 2014) rejected plans for consultation
(Source)
Question: If the business of companies like Whatsapp, Google and Facebook, is in
danger then why are they not coming out fully in support of Net Neutrality?
Answer:
@RedditIndia: This is one of the dangers of not having Net Neutrality. Without Net Neutrality,
there would be a possibility that large corporations, like Google and Facebook, can collude with
Telecom Operators to stifle competition in India, a very large market for these companies, and
restrain the growth of new startups who don't have deep pockets. (Also, Google and Facebook
are members of Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) which counts multiple TSPs as
its members, like AirTel, Vodafone, Aircel etc.)
@nixxin: Also dont forget that companies like Twitter, Facebook, Whatsapp and Google have
violated Net Neutrality in India. Twitter was free on Vodafone, Facebook as Internet.org,
Whatsapp tied up with multiple telcos for Whatsapp packs, Google had data free with Android
One, and a tie up with Airtel for increasing YouTube speeds during the IPL. All of this violates
Net Neutrality. Having done this, can they now publicly back Net Neutrality and have the humility
to admit that what they did was wrong? I doubt it.
Question:I already buy multiple prepaid packs. How is this different? I'm confused and
need more simple references.
Answer
@RedditIndia:
Ist scenario: Let's say you buy a car. You are going to visit a Mall. The road to the Mall
has a speed limit of 60 km/hr. But your car maker says that you can drive at 60 km/hr
only if the Mall owner pays the car maker else you drive at 30 km/hr. Then the Mall
owner charges you extra for the expenditure.
Anonymous commenter: This increases YOUR expenditure.
IInd scenario: Let's say your car has a maximum speed of 60 km/hr. Ideally, you should
be able to drive at that speed all the time. You need to visit a doctor. But your car maker

says that you can drive at 60 km/hr only if you visit a Shopping Center else you drive at
30 km/hr when going to a doctor. Or you pay the car maker extra every time to drive at
60 km/hr.
Anonymous commenter: IIIrd scenario: Assume there are 3 shopping malls (A, B, C) in
a city. Shopping mall (C) is owned by the Car Maker itself.
The car maker allows you to go to his shopping mall for FREE. But charges you extra $
100 to go to A and $ 200 to go to B, everytime.
Conclusion: You can buy a sedan, an SUV, a hatchback, a luxury car, a sports car, a
truck , a bus or whatever. But once you buy that vehicle, the car maker has NO say in
what, where, why, when, how you use the car.
You buy "Quality of Access". But once you have access you should have the freedom to
do whatever with it without further interruption from the access provider.

source: https://i.imgur.com/Bc9oxyH.jpg

Questions. Anyone worried about security/privacy? Aren't the TSPs looking at every bits
of data consumed now and hence are working hard to get the most-used data packets
turned into add-on packs?
Answer
@nixxin: We are. India doesnt have a privacy law. Theres a mandate from the government to
bring location awareness down to 50 meters. Theres tracking and recording of calls, GSM
sniffers (source), Social Media Monitoring via Netra(will add link), NATGRID(will add link).
Whats more, there is no judicial oversight of surveillance. The Centralised Monitoring System
(will add link) is meant to allow governments to tap calls even without telecom operators
knowing or receiving orders.
@DekaJayanta: Let me try to answer my question. I think when the network will pay attention to
the content of data rather than concentrating solely on delivering, there starts a serious problem.
The Telecom Service Providers are trying to make windows for every bit of data and slab it
accordingly to charge differentially. By reading the data in a packet, they are definitely breaking
privacy as well.

Question:Great! I want to support Net Neutrality. I want to send a mail to TRAI. Can I copy
and paste a standard reply?
Answer
@nixxin: These (link) are complicated questions and we need to give intelligent responses.
Well create a bunch of possible responses to each question by the middle of next week, and
you should pick and choose your answers, rewrite them in your own words and send them. The
TRAI is likely to reject templated answers, so Im not sure if its a good idea. Well have a site up
with answers too.
Question: Can ISPs block any site without a government order?
Answer
@nixxin: The way blocking works in India, under Section 69A, blocking is secret. So, typically,
without leaks, we dont even know if the government has gotten something blocked. In case of
ISPs, there is an allegation that they have blocked sites. Anonymous, a few years ago, had
hacked the servers of Reliance Communications, and found a list of sites blocked, and
published them on pastebin. Details here. Theres no telling whether this is true or not, but I
wouldnt say that this may not have happened.
Question: Is there some info-graphic that I can share with my peers on social media to
make them aware of the importance of Net Neutrality.
Answer:
@RedditIndia: Here is one info-graphic created by a redditor (source) and he/she has made it
license free. You are free to use this to spread awareness. https://i.imgur.com/gazt94B.png

Anonymous Commenter: You can also freely use these funny memes to spread the message.
Question: Electricity companies already charge based on usage. Above a limit, you are
charged differentially, so why should telcos not charge differentially?
Answer:
@ravithinkz: I think we need electricity neutrality. We should not segregate based on the type
of consumption - household or industrial or agriculture, after all, what we do with our kilowatthour is none of their business, isnt it?. Combine them all and charge everyone with the same
unit rate and have same amount of outages.
@DekaJayanta: The model of electricity companies charging on usage is what we look up to in
case of Telecom companies as well. A 1 GB pack for the present rate is OK instead of getting
charged Rs 1 per website. I can make use of that 1 GB in whichever way i want to - browsing all
the "legal" websites. Electricity companies don't ask which devices you will use with the
connection. They do provide a cap - to manage load better - but they don't charge you like say
Rs 100 access fee for using AC, Rs 50 for washing machine etc. They neither charge you
differently for different brands - LG refrigerator will have low electricity rates than Samsung! In
this case, the telecom companies are pitching for a regulation where they would be able to: 1.
Charge access fees for websites which "are harming their business". Like preference to Hike
over WhatsApp. 2. They can provide better speed to Bing rather than Google (or the other way
round) and may also levy extra charges on accessing Google. 3. This will also have bigger
impact on small start-ups who would be coaxed to go for deals with these telecom companies the almost certain death of new players.

Anonymous Commenter: Electricity Company analogy is valid only for "Price for Quality of
Access", that is the price you pay to access per unit of electricity depending on your usage
band. "Price for Quality of Access" is different from how ISPs are defining it. ISPs are saying,
"Pay them depending on where Internet is used, i.e., both the user and the online service used
by the user should pay the ISP." If I use a 8 Mbps internet connection with a monthly download
limit of "80 GB", obviously I will pay more than someone using 8 Mbps with a monthly download
limit of "10 GB". And also I don't think there is a concept of "Bandwidth throttling of electricity",
which is a major concern with Internet Bandwidth throttling.
Also read this article by Secretary of State for European Affairs for the Portuguese government
who says, "The real question is - Who gets to decide on Content?"

@adityamishra The analogy is broken. Besides the excellent points made below; electricity is a
regulated market. This means that the regulator fixes the price and not the electricity company.
In telecom, it is the TSP that sets the price and not TRAI.

Furthermore, the price increases with consumption bands in electricity because richer
customers (ie higher consumption band) subsidises the poor customers (ie low consumption
band). There is no such subsidy in telecom.
One can compare the electricity transmission business with Telco business in a limited way. This
can be done by looking at the Fee that Reliance charges Tata Power in Mumbai for using its
network. Its flat fee per unit and does not change with consumption bands.
@ankitpandey: Telecom companies already charge you based on your usage. The FUP (Fair
usage policy) is exactly that, where the user is charged more if over a certain limit. However the
Electric companies do not charge you for the kind of appliance you are running using that
electricity. Whether you use an AC or an electric kettle or a fan, the charges remain same. THIS
is what the ISPs and TelCos are trying to change with the internet.
@chupchap: The issue is not about metered rates. The issue is when the electricity provider
charges you separate rates for using a bulb and a different rate for using a bed lamp. You
should be charged based on usage and not based on what the usage was for. Continuing the
electricity analogy, you cannot run an industry using a home electricity connection. Similarly you
cannot set up a server using your home internet. There are already checks in place to avoid
abuse of the system. FUP is not part of net neutrality and that is something that will be fixed my
free market over time (or at least that is the hope).
@mbchandar i think telcos already charging differentially based on usage. remember FUP
applied on broadband which is started by airtel and then everyone followed upto bsnl.
what if electricity are charged based on devices - for computers, for lights, for ACs, for Water
heaters, induction cookers etc each consume different power . would you be willing to pay
per device usage.. telcos suggesting of charging OTT players are like that.
Question: Telephone companies are not doing charity, they need to make money. If they
are losing revenue because of WhatsApp and other services, isnt it fair if they charge
WhatsApp and others or charge us for different apps?
Answer:
@adityamishra Telecom Operators have the option of increasing the price of net access across
the board to make up for the lost revenue. Why should they decide what to charge for and what
not to charge for?
@chupchap: Should electricity board charge you extra if you have a solar water heater?
Should you have to take permission from them to set up a solar water heater?
@mbchandar just because telcos are losing money and hence policy has to be made for
them: that idea is insane. They have to come up with new VAS. Like they did with caller
tunes, ringtones, sms packs etc.

Anonymous Commenter: Nobody is stopping Telcos from diversifying their business

portfolio. Telcos can freely launch their own competing apps BUT don't break Net
Neutrality.
@DekaJayanta: We are looking this from a very micro-level. What if Telecom Opertors say only
TOI.com, Gaana.com and a few xyz.com will be available through the basic pack. And for every
other bunch of websites, you need to pay (say Rs 2 per website). This sounds like a cable TV
rather than internet. What if a company (TOI for an example here) strikes a deal with say Airtel.
Someone willing to browse HT will have to pay an extra fee! (Example for better understanding)
Question: Apart from spreading awareness (by posting status messages/pictures) and
mailing the TRAI, what are the other things that users can do to pressurise the
government to let the internet remain the way it is?
@DekaJayanta: This discussion doc is a nice start. One can individually push through social
media as well, but I believe a proper channel has to be there. A website/webpage to properly
discuss the issue? Sounds like a good idea. Isn't it? (Just suggesting)
Answer: Were working on a site for responding. I suggest that we use Reddit India for
discussions.
Question: Is there a way for us to send physical mailers into the TRAI, PMO office?
Answer: the TRAIs physical address is here.
Can someone help us with the PMOs address?
Question: Can you help us draft something?
Answer: Were working on something, which should be ready next week. We need to get this
right. Once weve got the answers done, well share publicly. Please use those as the base, and
use it to write your own answers. You might agree with some, disagree with others. What you
mail should be YOUR opinion. Well be there to help debate it so that you can decide for
yourself.
Q. What steps the Indian startups are taking to make their voices heard? Are they
supporting #NetNeutrality or are still not taking out their cards? Now that we have a list
of startups, can we note down their views?
A:
- Start off by telling others. Weve created a document that allows them to do this,
here.
- Help us draft answers, and well help you draft YOUR answers.
Q. What is the reaction of the media? Are they concerned or still not taking sides?
A: They are taking sides, and thats their call, as long as its an open bias, and readers know
that bias. Thats the beauty of the Internet: youre not restricted to one point of view because

you get only one newspaper or a few TV channels. The media will take its own call. You have to
tell people what you believe in, and get them involved.
Question: I can live without Facebook and WhatsApp. Give me some more examples of how it
will impact the more important things such as mobile banking, paying for utilities through mobile
etc.?
Question: If there is no net neutrality, it will help the big Internet startups to kill their competition
right away. Some CEOs and founders have spoken in favor of net neutrality. Many are silent.
Shouldn't we worry about that?
Question: OTT services are unlicensed and hence they are not bound by regulations to provide
top quality of service, tariff regulations, consumer protection regulations. Moreover, they don't
have to ensure confidentiality of customer information, privacy of communication, undergo
regular audits and ensure proper lawful monitoring and interception. So licensing and regulating
communication apps and other internet services seem to be a good thing, no? Only the ones
good enough to survive will survivelike any usual business.
Question: What if telecom companies keep the prices of the so-called Email packs, Messaging
packs etc. low enough? Remember they are doing business and they are not foolish enough to
keep the prices so high or take steps that would irk their customers. If my total bill at the end of
the month (after paying for different packs) is same as the bill I am paying today, how does not
having net neutrality affect me as a customer. And let's face it, most of us use only a limited
number of services on the internet anyway.
Question: Does anything stop telcos from acquiring internet messaging/telephony companies or
start their own services on their networks while restricting access to others on its network? It
might be hypothetical, but can we rule out a future where every telco has its own internet
messaging and voice serviceessentially replicating the control they traditionally had on SMS
and voice. Think Hike+Bharti Airtel.
Question: Can VPNs work if there no net neutrality exists?