The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India must be congratulated for upholding the core principles of net neutrality despite pressure from large telecom companies. The Indian telecom regulator has, in effect, taken leadership position globally, given that a number of other regulators, including the Federal Communications Commission of the US, have faltered in ensuring that access to internet remains non-discriminatory. In a highly digitised world, internet has become the basic infrastructure that advances the free speech rights of citizens. It has become an egalitarian platform that offers equal opportunities to everyone — from startup entrepreneurs to large corporations, social activists and governments alike. Above all, consumers use internet to drive up their productivity and improve awareness. However, telecom operators, being the gatekeepers of the infrastructure, have the power to differentiate on the basis of content. Practices like blocking, slowing down or throttling, and preferential treatment of certain content over others, are ways in which an operator can game the network to influence consumer behaviour. For example, mobile operators can get into an agreement with a specific content provider that will enable users to get faster access to the latter’s website compared to another content provider’s site. Such deals will push out newer players and ensure that only those with significant financial muscle thrive.
However, the regulator has excluded specialised services from the purview of net neutrality, without specifying what falls under this category. This could be a cause of concern given that the operators can exploit policy loopholes. For example, a communications network connecting hospitals may be rightly classified as a specialised service wherein operators may have to ensure a higher grade of service compared to the mass internet. However, a telecom operator could misuse this provision for entering into private deals with a healthcare mobile application provider to get unfair access to users. The regulator should have set up a monitoring platform to ensure that telecom companies make adequate disclosures about such specialised services.
The regulator has also allowed telecom companies to carry out reasonable traffic management practices, for delivering internet traffic. Traffic management practices such as those used for protecting network security, for example, are legitimate. But it can also lead to discriminatory practices. Perhaps TRAI could have specified what type of traffic management is allowed automatically, and which ones need approval. The other concern is the lack of a neutral enforcement body to ensure implementation of net neutrality, exceptions and transparency measures. The multi-stakeholder body led by industry, as proposed by TRAI, may not be enough. Industry-led bodies have seldom protected the rights of consumers and for this reason, the regulator should be vigilant about the implementation of net neutrality and impose heavy penalty on violators. The DoT, while accepting the regulator’s overall recommendations, should iron out niggles.