The American Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, is currently locked in a fierce debate about the concept of net neutrality. Should internet access be mandated along the common carrier principle somewhat like electricity grids, voice telephony and gas pipelines? If net access is deemed to be a common-carrier utility, American internet service providers would continue to operate much as they now do, without possessing leeway to selectively speed up, or throttle data on their networks. On the other hand, if internet service providers, or ISPs, are not deemed common carriers, they would have the right to selectively speed up, or slow data, and this would allow them to devise more ways to charge for content-based services.
This debate is now coming to a head in the United States. The internet works by the transfer of data packets. The consumer pays for a data-access plan and chooses which sites to surf. If the ISP is a common carrier, it cannot apply much discretion to distinguish between the data packets requested by the consumer, regardless of the origin or purpose. (In practice, some discretion is applied because streaming video, for instance, needs priority.) Many ISPs would like to move to a content-based regime where they could charge more (from the consumer, or the web service, or both) for delivering faster data from specific sites. Preferential access would allow them to offer content-based bouquets of high-speed websites, much like cable television providers offer packages of specific channels. The flip side of such a preferential system is that sites that do not pay the ISP, or competing sites that offer similar content, could be slowed down and throttled in order to induce traffic to go to the sites favoured by the ISP.
In most geographical locations, the ISPs are natural monopolies or near-monopolies, with few competing service providers. If a common carrier principle is not applied to the internet, services offered by individuals or small businesses, which cannot compete with big companies, could be driven off the net by benign neglect, or deliberate throttling. It is also conceivable that an ISP could tie up with news service providers, social media utilities, messaging services, financial services, etc, to provide end-to-end walled gardens of content. In effect, such an ISP would then make the surfing choices for customers.
As of now, India has no laws mandating common carrier principles for the internet and neutrality would have to be introduced as a concept by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, or Trai, before any such principles could be laid down. Trai is believed to be working on such a consultative paper. The Cellular Operators Association of India is generally in favour of seeking revenue-sharing arrangements with web services. The Internet and Mobile Association of India is, however, firmly in favour of net neutrality. Service providers, such as Airtel and Vodafone, have mooted the possibility of asking websites to pay telecom companies for access. It is unsurprising that Indian lobbies have already developed in favour of and against net neutrality, since the issues raised in the global debate are relevant here. India will soon have over 300 million internet users and mobile data have seen exponential growth. Trai must ensure that the internet in India remains an open, neutral space.
