The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has once again issued a ‘consultation paper on free data’..The new paper delves into the second question surrounding the debate on net neutrality i.e. whether there are any methods to provide access to ‘free internet’ without violating differential tariff norms..The question was raised in the consultation paper issued in 2015 and has been briefly referred to in the explanatory memorandum to the Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016 (Regulations)..An interesting point is the shift in language from ‘access to free internet’, as mentioned in the original question, to ‘access to free data’ later in the consultation paper (Para 7), just before presenting the models. This somewhat disingenuous shift in the language has a wider implication. Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director at IT for Change explains,.“The crucial difference between the two is that ‘free Internet’ is free access to the whole Internet and not a subset of it. Being able to access only some kind of data for free cannot be considered as free access to the ‘internet’.“.Before we begin to analyse the different models proposed, we must question the need for such an exercise. As Singh notes,.“We must first justify the need to deviate from our existing system, where net neutrality is observed, since there is no injustice being done now. What is the eagerness to change the system? Let’s start by making the internet less expensive, or the whole of it free, under some conditions, and thus making it more reachable.”.The idea should remain unchanged, whether it be a Telecom Service Provider (TSP)-agnostic platform or TSP-inclusive platform, differential pricing cannot exist..The paper provides three models which may be used for this purpose:.Reward-based model.In this model, whenever users access a website/application from the ‘TSP agnostic’ platform they will be rewarded in form of data/voice usage..This doesn’t seem like the best model to implement because it essentially requires an action before a reward i.e. having a valid internet connection to be able to reap the benefits. A user would need to pay to be online with sufficient ‘data balance’ to use such a model..Further, this model requires an agreement with the TSP, which goes against the very principle envisaged in the Regulations prohibiting any implicit or explicit agreement with the TSP..Toll-free API.This is an alternative that would allow users access to all content from the platform with ‘zero balance’. While the TSP is not directly involved in this, this is like a watered down version of Facebook’s free basics which was turned down earlier in February..Subsidy/Reimbursement.The third model proposed in the paper is reimbursing/recharging the subscriber with the amount incurred, measuring real-time data usage and tariffs applied on the same. It will work on the lines of how cooking gas subsidies are transferred to beneficiaries, wherein a user pays the full price first but gets partly reimbursed by the government..Singh adds,.“In this model, the platform can, without involving TSP, reimburse the person (by the means of Paytm etc.) using cash or conditional cash (in the form of say, a top up). These models are still possible within the last TRAI order banning differential prices since the TSP is still not involved. .However, since the impact of such practices is the same i.e. access to a part of the internet and not whole, it will have the same negative impacts as that of TSP enabled zero rating, the negative impacts of which have been highlighted in the previous order“.Keeping in mind the objective of the aforesaid paper i.e. (i) better connectivity for the unconnected and under-connected and; (ii) enable small entrepreneurs to flourish, the three methods suggested by the TRAI are by itself questionable..Will a person who is un/under-connected be incentivised to access the internet by the means of the suggested models?.Further, instead of giving a chance for small entrepreneurs to grow, this will eventually lead to monopolies wherein larger organisations such as Google and Facebook will be better places to provide data benefits to consumers as against small entrepreneurs..To this, Singh adds,.“We should aim to make the playing field levelled and on top of that playing field, businesses should be allowed to compete. Having an unlevelled playing field goes against the very idea of what the internet was always meant to be.”.So what can be done?.It must be ensured that the benefit reaches only those who actually deserve it, which means eliminating cash rich organisations such as Facebook and Google from being able to lure consumers..For this to happen, a criterion needs be laid down, for instance, only a startup as defined under the Startup Action Plan may benefit from this or as Singh notes,.“An entity with a market share of lesser than 5% or 15 %, or something on those lines”..This will ensure that the right people benefit from the provision of free data..As regards the need to improve connectivity, free internet is something which ought to be promoted, but not free data..“Just like certain units of electricity had been made free in Tamil Nadu, a good idea would be to give some amount of free internet say 100 MB or 200 MB. Once people start using it, they will be better positioned to see its benefits. .This will in turn increase internet penetration among the under-connected. It’s good for government and companies to give basic data allowances, but to the full internet. Partial access is worse than no access”.The regulation of Net Neutrality & Free Data will decide the future structure of the Internet, which is an increasingly valuable commercial market place with many opposing commercial interests attempting to increase their control/influence on it. Singh adds,.“We are in the process of laying down the DNA for an internet based society, small deviations in the DNA can have an adverse magnifying impact.”.On the question of whether it should be extended to fixed landlines, Singh says,.“Of course it should be extended. There’s no reason to exclude fixed landlines, we should understand that various important uses for internet like education or even tele health for that matter can largely be desktop based. There’s a limit to what a mobile can do. Mobile is meant for content consumption, it’s not a great place to create content.”.Image: Source
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has once again issued a ‘consultation paper on free data’..The new paper delves into the second question surrounding the debate on net neutrality i.e. whether there are any methods to provide access to ‘free internet’ without violating differential tariff norms..The question was raised in the consultation paper issued in 2015 and has been briefly referred to in the explanatory memorandum to the Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016 (Regulations)..An interesting point is the shift in language from ‘access to free internet’, as mentioned in the original question, to ‘access to free data’ later in the consultation paper (Para 7), just before presenting the models. This somewhat disingenuous shift in the language has a wider implication. Parminder Jeet Singh, Executive Director at IT for Change explains,.“The crucial difference between the two is that ‘free Internet’ is free access to the whole Internet and not a subset of it. Being able to access only some kind of data for free cannot be considered as free access to the ‘internet’.“.Before we begin to analyse the different models proposed, we must question the need for such an exercise. As Singh notes,.“We must first justify the need to deviate from our existing system, where net neutrality is observed, since there is no injustice being done now. What is the eagerness to change the system? Let’s start by making the internet less expensive, or the whole of it free, under some conditions, and thus making it more reachable.”.The idea should remain unchanged, whether it be a Telecom Service Provider (TSP)-agnostic platform or TSP-inclusive platform, differential pricing cannot exist..The paper provides three models which may be used for this purpose:.Reward-based model.In this model, whenever users access a website/application from the ‘TSP agnostic’ platform they will be rewarded in form of data/voice usage..This doesn’t seem like the best model to implement because it essentially requires an action before a reward i.e. having a valid internet connection to be able to reap the benefits. A user would need to pay to be online with sufficient ‘data balance’ to use such a model..Further, this model requires an agreement with the TSP, which goes against the very principle envisaged in the Regulations prohibiting any implicit or explicit agreement with the TSP..Toll-free API.This is an alternative that would allow users access to all content from the platform with ‘zero balance’. While the TSP is not directly involved in this, this is like a watered down version of Facebook’s free basics which was turned down earlier in February..Subsidy/Reimbursement.The third model proposed in the paper is reimbursing/recharging the subscriber with the amount incurred, measuring real-time data usage and tariffs applied on the same. It will work on the lines of how cooking gas subsidies are transferred to beneficiaries, wherein a user pays the full price first but gets partly reimbursed by the government..Singh adds,.“In this model, the platform can, without involving TSP, reimburse the person (by the means of Paytm etc.) using cash or conditional cash (in the form of say, a top up). These models are still possible within the last TRAI order banning differential prices since the TSP is still not involved. .However, since the impact of such practices is the same i.e. access to a part of the internet and not whole, it will have the same negative impacts as that of TSP enabled zero rating, the negative impacts of which have been highlighted in the previous order“.Keeping in mind the objective of the aforesaid paper i.e. (i) better connectivity for the unconnected and under-connected and; (ii) enable small entrepreneurs to flourish, the three methods suggested by the TRAI are by itself questionable..Will a person who is un/under-connected be incentivised to access the internet by the means of the suggested models?.Further, instead of giving a chance for small entrepreneurs to grow, this will eventually lead to monopolies wherein larger organisations such as Google and Facebook will be better places to provide data benefits to consumers as against small entrepreneurs..To this, Singh adds,.“We should aim to make the playing field levelled and on top of that playing field, businesses should be allowed to compete. Having an unlevelled playing field goes against the very idea of what the internet was always meant to be.”.So what can be done?.It must be ensured that the benefit reaches only those who actually deserve it, which means eliminating cash rich organisations such as Facebook and Google from being able to lure consumers..For this to happen, a criterion needs be laid down, for instance, only a startup as defined under the Startup Action Plan may benefit from this or as Singh notes,.“An entity with a market share of lesser than 5% or 15 %, or something on those lines”..This will ensure that the right people benefit from the provision of free data..As regards the need to improve connectivity, free internet is something which ought to be promoted, but not free data..“Just like certain units of electricity had been made free in Tamil Nadu, a good idea would be to give some amount of free internet say 100 MB or 200 MB. Once people start using it, they will be better positioned to see its benefits. .This will in turn increase internet penetration among the under-connected. It’s good for government and companies to give basic data allowances, but to the full internet. Partial access is worse than no access”.The regulation of Net Neutrality & Free Data will decide the future structure of the Internet, which is an increasingly valuable commercial market place with many opposing commercial interests attempting to increase their control/influence on it. Singh adds,.“We are in the process of laying down the DNA for an internet based society, small deviations in the DNA can have an adverse magnifying impact.”.On the question of whether it should be extended to fixed landlines, Singh says,.“Of course it should be extended. There’s no reason to exclude fixed landlines, we should understand that various important uses for internet like education or even tele health for that matter can largely be desktop based. There’s a limit to what a mobile can do. Mobile is meant for content consumption, it’s not a great place to create content.”.Image: Source
