Will the Government buy TRAI’s ‘Net Neutrality’?

While the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India is being applauded globally for proposing what is perhaps the most robust Net Neutrality regulations in the world, India continues to lag behind in Internet speed and coverage; both critical requirements in ushering the digital economy that the government likes to brag about at every opportunity.

It might be interesting to note that India ranks a lowly 89th globally, in broadband internet speed with an average connection speed (IPv4) of 6.5 Mbps, according to the State of the Internet Q1 2017 Connectivity report by Akamai Technologies. This is below the global average connection speed at 7.2 Mbps and even behind Sri Lanka with 8.5 Mbps.

Net neutrality, or open Internet, is the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) or telecom operators who provide our phones or devices with broadband connectivity, should give all consumers access to all legal content and applications on an equal basis, without favouring some sources or blocking others.

TRAI has disallowed “discriminatory treatment” of content by telecom operators. In the past, telecom operators were found to be involved in throttling, blocking and degrading of Internet speed to give preferential treatment to a particular type of content belonging either to the telecom operator or any third-party that had tied up with the telecom operator.

Telecom operators have argued that they should be allowed to charge for Over-the-top services (OTT services) such as WhatsApp , Youtube and Netflix.

Internet footprint in India is another piece of data is equally interesting in putting the state of the Internet in context while discussing Net Neutrality. Though growing rapidly, the total internet connections in India at the end of June, 2017 stood at 431.21 million, of which 293.82 million were in urban areas and 137.39 million were in rural areas – a lot of ground remains to be covered in a country with a population of 1.3 billion with an aspiration to become a digital economy. If one takes into account individuals who have more than one SIM connection then the total number of people with Internet connectivity would fall even lower.

While the TRAI has made the Net Neutrality recommendations, the next step is to make sure these are put into action. It is up to the Department of Telecommunications to take the recommendations and turn them into licensing conditions to be put on telecom providers. A multi-stakeholder body will also be established for monitoring and enforcement of the net neutrality framework. The TRAI must now ensure that decisions regarding specifications on traffic management practices and the practical definition of “specialised services” is done in a way that is transparent, relies on robust participatory mechanisms, and is consistent with the net neutrality principles enshrined in these recommendations.

Is net neutrality enforceable?: A critical question that also needs to be answered in this context is whether net neutrality is actually enforceable. This question was studied by British computer scientist Neil Davies for Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator. Prof Davies looked at the six best methods of “traffic management detection” and found all of them wanting in some important way.

Net neutrality enforcers need the ability to detect unfair treatment of Internet sites; without this capability regulations banning such conduct are meaningless. Prof Davies declared “no tool or combination of tools currently available is suitable for practical use” in this endeavour. However, this view is challenged to some extent by Artificial Intelligence programmers who argue that ‘anomaly detection’ algorithms can be used to find out whether a particular ISP or telecom operator is actually violating Net Neutrality rules or not.

However, telcos argue that detecting whether some Internet traffic was being slowed down or speeded up would be next to impossible, and would require access to an ISP’s confidential internal traffic data. The GSMA, an international association of telecom operators, said “monitoring and detecting unfair traffic management practices is challenging,” and that any detection framework should be highly robust.

Overall the view is that it would be difficult to detect practices like throttling and paid prioritisation, unless there’s a “neutral network” that is outside an ISP’s network which works with end-users to measure speeds of different applications and services to see if there’s any discriminatory traffic management.

TRAI has its own application to measure mobile data speed, MySpeed app. However, some operators had complained about methods and results of the MySpeed app, and the regulator had promised to come out with a white paper on underlying methodology and algorithms used for calculating data speeds of various service providers.

Telecom service providers’ body COAI also felt that the recommendations were unnecessarily bureaucratic and a committee would review and decide on network management violations. They also felt that the regulations were not in keeping with light touch regulation or the ease of doing business.

There is good reason for the telecom operators, not to feel very excited by the TRAI’s propositions on Net Neutrality as they will not be able to enter into agreements with OTT (over-the-top) players (like YouTube and WhatsApp), which provided additional revenue streams for telcos. Also, telcos argue that since the current recommendations have kept OTT services out of the ambit of any regulations, it will allow them to continue to eat into their revenues.

While Net Neutrality is certainly the right step forward in democratising information by ensuring the same access to everyone, however, one would also need to focus on making available Internet to everyone and ensuring that those who had were delivered the speeds promised by the providers, as otherwise it will be a half-baked measure.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has recommended against telecom service providers charging differential rates for data services.

1. No service provider can offer or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content.
2. No service provider shall enter into any arrangement, agreement or contract, by whatever name called, with any person, natural or legal, that the effect of discriminatory tariffs for data services being offered or charged by the service provider for evading the prohibition in this regulation.
3. Reduced tariff for accessing or providing emergency services, or at times of public emergency has been permitted.
4. Financial disincentives for contravention of the regulation have also been specified
5. TRAI may review these regulations after a period of two years.