Trai takes the right call

Some niggles still need to be ironed out in net neutrality suggestions

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) must be complimented for its strong message that no one owns the internet and that it should be open and accessible to everyone. The regulator has indeed walked the talk; Tuesday’s recommendations that internet service providers must treat all data on the internet equally means they cannot choose to speed up or slow down a particular service or charge different rates. There is also considerable merit in the argument that telecom companies should not be able to allot sites into fast and slow lanes, because that would allow them to become a gatekeeper for information and entertainment. In addition, it would hurt start-ups without the money to pay for the faster lanes. The proposals are significant as they arrive in the midst of a move by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US to scrap landmark rules intended to ensure a free and open internet, providing broadband service providers sweeping power over what content consumers can access. 

In another well-considered move, Trai has kept content delivery platforms out of the ambit of net neutrality, which means telecom service providers such as Bharti Airtel and Reliance Jio that have their own content platforms and are offering these services on their own networks can charge differential prices. At the same time, the regulator has ensured that new players do not lose out to their more muscular rivals by specifically barring mobile operators from entering into agreements with specific content providers. This, if allowed, would have provided users relatively faster access to the latter’s websites. Trai wants the recommended rules to be clearly stated in the licence terms all telecom providers must adhere to in order to provide their services.

But there are some important caveats here. While examining the Trai proposals, the department of telecommunications (DoT) should look at plugging some lacunae in the recommendations. For example, the regulator has exempted “specialised services” from the principle of net neutrality, without defining what these services are. The lack of clarity on the issue leaves scope for some operators to exploit policy loopholes. Another concern is the proposal for a multi-stakeholder body led by the industry to ensure implementation of net neutrality through proper disclosures. Since such self-regulatory bodies have rarely worked in India, there is need for a neutral monitoring framework to bring transparency into the way the telecom industry functions. In any case, the DoT is well positioned to investigate any violation of licence conditions and it already has the necessary enforcement mechanism in place.