The war over data

Government must frame policy on net neutrality

Bharti Airtel has fired the first salvo in what promises to be a long and complicated war over internet data pricing. Airtel customers were told recently that, in future, regular unlimited data plans would not include calls made through Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications such as Skype or Viber. For using such applications, customers would have to pay a different rate for their data, or buy a completely separate pre-paid package. Essentially, this would mean that the internet data service used to carry an Airtel user's voice over VoIP applications would be priced four times higher than the same internet data service used to carry something else.
 

Bharti Airtel's motives are easy to understand. It is, after all, a phone company - and revenues from simple voice calls are threatened by VoIP applications. This means that it will, if allowed to, try and monetise VoIP. Indeed, if successful in this respect, then there is no reason why it will not go after the various other "over-the-top" or OTT applications that Indian cellphone operators believe are eating into their revenue, such as instant-messaging services like WhatsApp. The usage of short messaging services or SMS and the associated revenue have fallen sharply even as WhatsApp's popularity has increased.

But the company is facing major pushback. Many users are outraged that what they see as a sacred principle of internet usage is being violated: the same data service is being charged at different rates based on how it is being used. This violates what is known as "net neutrality", which has been a bedrock of the internet since it was founded. Net neutrality means, essentially, that, there is an implicit contract between an internet user and the internet service provider that, first, all sites will be equally accessible; second, that they would be accessible at identical speeds; and that they would be accessible at identical prices. This is familiar to anyone who studies physical infrastructure: it is, essentially, the common carrier principle applied to the digital domain.

However, the crucial point is that, as of now, Bharti Airtel has every right to violate net neutrality because the principle of net neutrality has not yet been enshrined as law, policy or regulation. But why stop there? Bharti Airtel, too, can complain that OTT applications are going largely unregulated. The gap can lead to problems: for example, one OTT app is Uber. The government now wants to regulate Uber like a taxi provider - in other words, like a service provider and not as a simple data-user. But then why are applications like Skype not being regulated like service providers - like the other voice call companies? Are they subject to the same security requirements? Do they have the same rural telephony expansion quotas? If not, why this difference between applications? Inconsistency in regulation can lead to confusion, bans, legal challenges and uncertainty.

It would be unfair to blame the sector regulator, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, for this problem. Essentially it can just implement regulations and policy. In the past, telecom companies had sought to have providers of OTT applications pay them a small fee - and on that occasion the regulator managed to stop it from happening. But in the absence of policy action, this cannot happen every time. This time the companies have struck back through the tariff route, and the regulator is helpless. If net neutrality is not a policy, and if OTT applications are not being regulated as service providers, then such questions will keep on arising. On both, the government must soon frame policy that is transparent and non-discretionary. Looking into this particular instance, such as the telecom minister has promised, is not enough.