DoT recommendations don’t go all the way
The Department of Telecommunications' panel report on Net neutrality is seemingly well-intentioned, but it stumbles due to its effort to strike a middle ground and please all stakeholders. The report affirms the Government's commitment to the principles of neutrality, makes a strong case for user-rights on the Internet, and underlines the importance of protecting such rights.
It also makes clear that telecommunication service providers cannot restrict the user's access to a particular service or app. This marks a huge victory for Net neutrality activists who had campaigned against a major TSP's effort to restrict access (by making it more expensive) to certain apps on the ground that it was providing free access to alternate platforms. As Net neutrality activists pointed out at that time, this was a facile argument because the TSP was already charging the consumer for the Internet data pack (therefore, there was no real ‘free' access to any platform).
The activists also argued that since the consumer had already paid for an Internet data pack, he/she should have the freedom to access all platforms, as long as they were legal. They also pointed out that creating a system of prioritised access would inherently work against smaller ventures (which have in fact driven the Internet revolution across the world) and stamp out innovation. On all these counts, the DoT has upheld the core principles of Net neutrality admirably.
However, it has undercut its own commitment when seeking to build level a playing ground between TSPs and mobile applications that are eating into the former's core business — of making and receiving calls. The DoT wants to regulate (and possibly by levying charges) calls made over the Internet through mobile applications such as Whatsapp, to bring them at par with calls made through regular mobile networks. It argues that since both platforms are offering the same service, they should be subject to the same rules. This is akin to comparing apples with oranges, and also violates the principles of Net neutrality
Notably, the DoT has only recommended charges for domestic Internet calls while international calls made through Whatsapp or Skype, a market leader in Voice-over Intern Protocol calls, are out of the purview. It seems like this distinction has been made because the volume of international calls is much smaller than that of domestic calls and, therefore, the loss of revenue suffered by TSPs when consumers use VoIP to call abroad doesn't hurt that much. Also, because international calls are so prohibitively expensive, the public will be up in arms if VoIP calls are ‘regulated'.
This only strengthens the suspicion that charging for domestic Internet calls is about appeasing the TSPs, and not necessarily a principled decision. Moreover, if the DoT's argument of a level playing field had been a serious one, then even international calls should not have been spared. The Government clearly must not buy into the constraining recommendation.