# Net Neutrality

# Net Neutrality

In the recent past Net Neutrality (NN) has become a buzz word. Anybody and everybody in our circles whether aware of the real meaning of the term and the complexities attached to the whole issue or not have something or the other to say on the issue. People have gone to the extent of connecting the issue of NN with that of ‘Freedom of Speech and Expression’ as guaranteed by the Constitution of India and ‘Right to Information’ as guaranteed by other statute.

But is this whole issue of NN so simple in nature to give generic views, debates and comments on news channels and/or social media and is it so simple for people like us to just make a generic comment on how our rights will be violated by schemes launched by some of the Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) (e.g. Airtel Zero, Facebook Free Basics)? I think it is not that simple and needs greater amount of pondering and analysis before any comment is made.

In this article, I try to simplify some of the crucial aspects connected with the whole issue of Net Neutrality through simple examples and would then want all of you to give suggestions on arriving at a comprehensive and acceptable definition of the term Net Neutrality. To start with let us first know the most common abbreviations that are used in the article and the definition of the term Net Neutrality.

TSP:                Telecom Service Provider [eg. Airtel, Vodafone, Reliance etc.]

ASP:                Application Service provider [eg. Apps, Websites, Payment Gateways etc.]

CAPs:             Content and Application Providers [same as above]

User:               End user who subscribes for TSP services [People like you and me]

Common Definition of Concept of Net Neutrality:

NN means an environment where the TSPs charges only users for internet access and do not favor one CAP/ASP over another and/or does not charge CAP/ASP for sending information over broadband lines to users.   

Let us now start understanding the concept and complexities involved through different examples. With each example we will go on adding one stakeholder who has a role to play in this complex business environment. At the end of each example we will highlight issues involved and then see if the above generic definition is good enough to be applied as a solution to the debate.

Also let us understand few crucial facts that TSPs invest huge money while purchasing bandwidth from the government and in developing their infrastructure for supply of services. Also limited bandwidth is available for consumption among huge number of Users with varied patterns, habits and needs for usage of the said bandwidth.

Scenario 1:

‘Ram’ is a customer of ‘Airfone’ company and uses their ‘Bonanza’ data pack at Rs. 500/ month. There are no restrictions as to what content he can view, share, download and upload.

This scenario is an absolute NN scenario where TSP is not imposing any restriction on the User and User is free to make his own choices at a nominal cost of Rs. 500/month.

A little tweak in this scenario will give us first hint of exercise of right by the TSP. Let us assume that the data pack restricts per month data at 2 GB and the speed of 10 MBPS.

Now we cannot say that the NN is absolute as the TSP is exercising some control over the User.    

Scenario 2:

‘Ram’ and ‘Shyam’ are customers of ‘Airfone’ company and use ‘Bonanza’ data pack at Rs. 500/ month. There are no restrictions as to what content he can view, share, download and upload. Except that that the data pack restricts per month data at 2 GB and the speed of 10 MBPS.

Ram is an avid user of video content, live streaming and high definition content and most of the time ends up exhausting his 2 GB limit in the said data pack while Shyam is an author and mostly uses content only light websites and does not usually consumer entire limit of 2 GB available to him under the said data pack.  

Most of the times when Shyam logs in to the internet he fees the speed is low and the reason given by the TSP is congestion during peak hours. The congestion here can be attributed to the usage habits of another user ‘Ram’.

In the present scenario while the User is given absolute NN the same does not look to be a justified. In this scenario Shyam is compensating or cross subsidizing the usage by Ram and is thus at a disadvantageous position than Ram.

Scenario 3:

There are about 100 customers/Users who have subscribed the ‘Bonanza’ data pack of the ‘Airfone’ company. ‘Dreambook’ is a highly popular website/application which is high on video, pictures and such other heavy content. Almost 75 Users regularly visit ‘Dreambook’ while 25 do not use the same. ‘Dreambook’, because of its huge User following, earns high revenues through advertising.

In the present scenario facts seem to be little skewed in favour of 75 users and the ‘Dreambook’ in as much as those 75 Users block majority of the bandwidth available. The ‘Dreambook’ is riding on the infrastructure in which ‘Airfone’ has invested heavily and is earning revenues without giving any share to ‘Airfone’, while the other 25 users are cross subsidizing for 75 users and helping ‘Airfone’, manage its costs and revenues for the infra investment it has made.         

Scenario 4:

‘Airfone’ decides to introduce differential pricing for Users, based on their usage habits and charges higher price from the Users who consumer higher bandwidth and offers discounts to the Users who’s usage habits are light.

In the present scenario while the cross subsidizing issue is addressed, ‘Airfone’ still feels that it has opportunity to grab a share of revenue from ‘Dreambook’ as it is using ‘Airfone’s‘ network.

Scenario 5:

‘Airfone’ starts charging ‘Dreambook’ for riding its network along with differential pricing for the Users.

Now ‘Airfone’ has started to get higher returns as it is charging Users as well as ASP/CAS and hence stakes are now tilting in favour of  the TSP i.e. ‘Airfone’.

Scenario 6:

After hue and cry being made by Users for its double profit making schemes, ‘Airfone’ decides to introduce special package called ‘Bonanza ++’ in association with ‘Dreambook’, where it has agreed to get some revenues through ‘Dreambook’ and allows higher speed to the Users who have subscribed to ‘Bonanza++’ package at a slightly higher price than ‘Bonanza’ pack which is still available in the market.  

In this scenario there will be two stakeholders who suffer the most. One the users who have not subscribed for ‘Bonanza++’ and are continuing with ‘Bonanza’, as they will get lower speed while using internet or for that matter while accessing ‘Dreambook’ and the other ‘Group +’, a startup, which provides similar application like ‘Dreambook’ but is a new entrant in the market and is not in commercially sound position to negotiate favourable terms with TSP ‘Airfone’.

Scenario 7:  

‘Vodatel’ who is the closest competitor of ‘Airfone’ in the market and has a huge subscriber base, buys out ‘Group +’ Application form its owners. ‘Vodatel’ slows down speed for ‘Dreambook’ users on its network and allows faster speed to ‘Group +’ service as it is a captive service for ‘Vodatel’ and it wants to promote it. Further for providing fast lane access, it demands additional fee from ‘Dreambook’ on its network.      

In this scenario the end users on both the networks are suffering for no fault of theirs as the TSPs are competing and are trying to grab higher revenue by whatever means available to them. They are also resorting to unethical practices like slowing down systems for competing ASP/CAS.     

Scenario 8:

In all the aforementioned purely commercial arrangements the network bandwidths are so clogged and slow that certain essential services like hospital network accesses, distress help lines etc. do not get adequate space/bandwidth.

In this Scenario there seems to be a dire need for preferential treatment for certain essential, necessary ASP/CAS who may not have any commercial interest in being available online but need to be available for larger wellbeing of the society as a whole.

Scenario 9:

A different set of stakeholders who are mobile handset manufacturers, the owners of Operating Systems who have different game plan of controlling the entire gamut of services by manufacturing phones (Android, Balckberry, IOS, Iphones) which support only selective apps, services that can be installed on the devices or which through their own online stores (eg. Google Play, Apple Store) control the content, services, applications that are available to a User for him/her to actually download the same.

This scenario shows that how broad the entire scope of this whole debate of NN can be and how many different aspects of the issue need to be addressed rather than just saying that we want out internet freedom and hence TSPs should just charge us for data that we use.

In view whereof I feel that the write-up may be concluded with following important points, which need to be taken into consideration while devising a policy and/or regulatory framework on NN:

·   Absolutely NN is ruled out as the same may still not give desired results for two different sets of Users and may have a tendency of skewing the stakes in favour of those who are heavy content users.

·        While tier based pricing for different Users by TSPs may be allowed, there should be some minimum standards of quality which should be defined and the TSPs should not be allowed to have a quality below those minimum standards irrespective of the price that they charge from the Users.

·     Traffic Management can be allowed with certain restriction, which give preferential treatment to certain essential services ASP/CAS.

·         No preferential treatment should be allowed on the basis of services owned by large CASs/ASPs and/or captive services by TSPs.

·      There should be minimum Service quality defined and no switching charges for users if they are not satisfied with services of one TSP.

·    While the TSPs may be allowed to enter into commercial arrangements with bigger ASPs/CASs, the same should not be at the cost of smaller ASPs/CASs who may not have similar negotiating power in such a way that it hinders innovation.

·       Regulatory framework for minimum standards for services, minimum quality, access speeds, preferences to essential services etc. should be tight and grievance redressal mechanism has to be quick.

·         Competition watchdog has to be on the lookout for any unfair practices and abuse of dominance by larger players (TSP, ASP, CAS) and actions against the same should be stringent and speedy.     

There can be several other suggestions which will make this note comprehensive and I would look forward for your comments and opinions on the same.

…………….