Regulating OTT platforms reignites India’s net neutrality debate Premium

Eight years on, telecom operators find themselves in a public fight with familiar adversaries: online firms and internet rights groups

In recent weeks, the telecom industry loudly demanded a ‘network usage fee’ from Big Tech platforms whose traffic constitutes a major part of the data flowing through the Indian internet. Internet rights groups have pushed back on these demands, saying that they are a violation of net neutrality, the principle that all data online should be treated equally. These demands come following years of setbacks to the telecom industry’s efforts to get more revenue for data services. 

Meanwhile, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), India’s telecom regulator, has sought public comments on this subject, and on whether messaging apps should be regulated. The regulator is asking whether it is possible for telecom operators to work with messaging apps, and social media platforms to block access to their services instead of imposing an internet shutdown. These two issues need some perspective to assess them.

In 2015, TRAI launched a consultation paper on a regulatory framework for ‘OTT services’. Netflix had not yet launched in India, and OTT, which stands for over-the-top, had not yet become strongly associated with streaming services in India. OTT services ride ‘over the top’ of internet networks, and don’t own the infrastructure of telecom networks through which their services ultimately reach people. 

The consultation included a section on ‘Network Neutrality’. Bharti Airtel Ltd had, in the previous year, announced that it would start charging users more for data that they used for placing online calls, such as on apps like Viber. The announcement sparked a pushback, and TRAI said it would consider the public’s views on the subject. Airtel dropped its announced tariff while the issue was being considered. 

The public responded overwhelmingly in support of Net Neutrality, aided by advocacy tools and ready-to-send emails drafted by the Save the Internet coalition, which would later become the Internet Freedom Foundation. Facebook, which sensed an existential threat to its Internet.org offering that offered some parts of the internet on participating telcos’ networks for free, entered the fray with its own public outreach and advocacy. 

TRAI ended up spinning Net Neutrality off into a separate consultation, asking the public if ‘differential pricing’ of data should be allowed. That is, should telecom operators be allowed to charge people different amounts for accessing different services online? Internet rights groups — along with groups of start-ups — said no. In 2016, TRAI prohibited telecom companies from charging what it now called ‘discriminatory tariffs’. The Net Neutrality proponents had scored a victory.

However, Net Neutrality is about more than just what the consumer pays for access. It’s also about speeds, and whether telecom operators can selectively slow down traffic on their networks. Another issue is whether telecom operators can demand payments from the owners of websites and apps from which they receive a lot of traffic, and restrict data from them if the latter refuse. The net neutrality debate in the US since 2014 has centred around this issue.