The world is going digital. Internet has become a necessity, whether one is in urban or rural area. Though availability of high-speed Internet is still a major issue in India, a large number of applications have been developed. Broadband penetration is expected to increase with the proposed entry of Reliance Jio that is slated to launch its services in a few months.
In last six months, a lot of debate has taken place on the issue of Net neutrality. Industry lobbies, telecom operators, IT companies, media houses and NGOs are all vocal in communicating their views. Sometimes, the views are confused and are self contradictory.
It is right time to settle the controversy once for all. The first step should be that TRAI and the department of telecommunications (DoT) should define what Net neutrality is. This will help in a meaningful debate. Presently, everyone looks at net neutrality in a manner that suits his interests.
In my view, Net neutrality is the universal access of Internet from any device, anywhere and anytime. One should be able to receive the same quality of services for all the sites.
Now the question is what should be the guiding principle behind a policy on Net neutrality. It is very simple. There should be complete level playing field between all the service providers including telecom operators, content developers and any kind of OTT service providers.
Earlier in the Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016, TRAI said, “No service provider shall offer or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content.” The idea is to keep the Internet open and non-discriminatory.
In my earlier Column, on February 22, I pointed out an example of Facetime, a video chat service from Apple. The regulations on Net Neutrality prohibit a telecom operator to charge ‘discriminatory’ tariff for accessing this service. But once you access it, discrimination begins. This popular service can be used only if the other person also has an Apple product - iPhione, iPad, iPod Touch or Mac Computers.
Isn’t it discriminationIJ Here a device company is providing telecom service through its App. It is allowed to differentiate between Apple and non-Apple users. This helps Apple in increasing sale of its products. Then why can’t a telecom service provider differentiate between different Apps and contents. TRAI’s definition of Net Neutrality clearly ignores this fact.
Similarly, it is also discriminatory when two companies, for example BSNl and Skype, offer same voice services - one pays Spectrum and licence charges, while other doesn’t pay anything. BSNl has to follow QOS norms and Skype doesn’t follow any norms.
There is need for a fresh debate on Net neutrality where all stake holders are given equal opportunity to present views and the decision should not be in the larger interest of the sector and consumers.
(The writer is a Senior Journalist)