Big win for net neutrality: Telecom regulator prohibits discriminatory tariffs for data

[bibinjohn]

NEW DELHI: Telecom regulator Trai on Monday prohibited discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content. The move is a big blow to Facebook's highly-controversial 'Free Basics' platform and Airtel's zero-rated platform 'Airtel Zero'.

In an order, 'Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulation', Trai said, "no service provider shall offer or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content."


The regulator further said that "no service provider shall enter into any arrangement, agreement or contract, by whatever name called, with any person... that has the effect of discriminatory tariffs for data services being offered or charged to the consumer on the basis of content."


An exemption has been made for emergency services, or at times of public emergency.

SOURCE: Big win for net neutrality: Telecom regulator prohibits discriminatory tariffs for data - Times of Indi

 

[kg11sgbg]

At last a very good move by TRAI!!
We the netizens must be particularly happy.

Congrats + Salutations , TRAI.

LONG LIVE NET-NEUTRALITY...........................................

 

[Anorion]

hmm... what if the service provider is also the content provider
because airtel is still blatantly having discriminatory tariffs for wynk

 

[Nerevarine]

Now if only they raise minimum speed cap to 2 mbps, that would be something

 

[Desmond]

After having a terrible day. I finally feed good reading this.

Now I wonder what will be the fate of Free Basics.

 

[kg11sgbg]

Now if only they raise minimum speed cap to 2 mbps, that would be something

Probability of raising min. speed cap to 2Mbps is seeming to become a reality.

The Question is WHEN???????????????????

 

[kkn13]

hmm... what if the service provider is also the content provider
because airtel is still blatantly having discriminatory tariffs for wynk

So do idea ,vodafone etc when it comes to using their apps such as Money or account checking apps

 

[anirbandd]

this is great news.



i am glad TRAI took the right decision.

- - - Updated - - -

hmm... what if the service provider is also the content provider
because airtel is still blatantly having discriminatory tariffs for wynk

Trai and Net Neutrality: A principle-driven fight was won today but battle for connectivity continues - Firstpos

While one packet cannot be prioritised over the other, a neutral network could still provide free content on say its own network. For instance, an operator could choose to offer a free section on its music portal if it wishes to. However, under no circumstances could it prioritise its own music service over another services such as Spotify, Hungama or Saavn to name a few.

although this is the author's interpretation, i am inclined to believe that this is what TRAI would pursue.

- - - Updated - - -

a great read and some crucial points [loopholes]

Anything on internet cannot be differentially priced: Trai Chairman RS Sharma - The Economic Time

- - - Updated - - -

and from this same interview:

If Airtel offers Wynk free for its customers?

If there's a product on the internet, it cannot violate these rules, because we cannot have discriminatory pricing.


Read more at:
Anything on internet cannot be differentially priced: Trai Chairman RS Sharma - The Economic Time

Yay!!!

 

[Raaabo]

Despite the fact that I believe the net to not be neutral anyway. I think this at least brings clarity. However, it means that you've taken away any long term profit hopes for providers, which in the end results in them not caring about anything but making more money off existing subscribers.

I think this will actually make the price of bandwidth stagnate for a bit, instead of it becoming cheaper. I hope I'm wrong.

As usual, popularity won, and the voice of the connected was used to decide the fate of those who aren't connected. The haves decided on what the have-nots deserve or don't deserve.

I just hope that in a decade or two, we don't find ourselves lagging behind countries worse than us now, only because they allowed a corporate to make a profit as a means of connecting and educating a lot of their poorer population. Then we will have net-neutrality, but not net-parity with the rest of the world.

 

[Desmond]

FB lost because they were using malicious practices to justify their ends. They were trying to turn a serious discussion into arm-chair activism, even going far as tricking users into supporting their claim. However, in the end, TRAI saw through their bullshit. FB could not come up with the 11 million people who they claimed supported Free Basics. TRAI could not reach the supporters for clarification either since many of those mails were sent by FB via no-reply email addresses.

FB used 9gag level of malice and paid the price.

 

[Raaabo]

Of course they were using malicious practices, they're a corporation. They only care about their stock holders. What do you expect?

Since the new wealth is people, corporations want as many to be using their services. This is a good thing as far as getting people connected is.

At least the poor had some value as a commodity. Now they're worthless again because they're not the commodity anymore.

We're back to the good old net. The one where ISPs can dictate and charge access charges that they feel is fine (so long as it's universal).

Of course you can all watch your porn and torrent in peace, so you're happy, but a lot of rural India is again forgotten.

Now all those who showed concern for those "poor people" who were being threatened by Facebook's walled gardens will conveniently forget about the poor sods.

As long as they didn't get a net that threatened our freedom... Then it's good. No one actually gives a **** about them though. Right?

 

[techie_85]

How do we even know Free Basics was aimed at the poor, is it just because Zuckerberg said so?

The bitter truth is that the poor rural Indian was probably just a smoke screen used by Facebook and the real target of this service would always be the middle class of this country. Afterall it's easier to monetize a urban middle class user than it is to monetize a poor rural user.

I'm happy TRAI was able to see past the melodramatic argument like "Will somebody think of the rural poor!" and gave a very clear verdict.

 

[Raaabo]

I'm middle class, I assume you're middle class. Would you be happy with a watered down experience without JavaScript and just access to Wikipedia and some crap sites?

Which middle class Indian would be OK with that?

 

[anirbandd]

quite the devil's advocate that you are playing [MENTION=1]Raaabo[/MENTION] good points.

i am quite sure that "free basics" wouldn't be the end of FB's road into the internet roadways in india.

as you said, FB as a corporation is as malicious as can be possible [as is illustrated by their underhand practice to get mails sent from unsuspecting users] and if they had not been restrained by TRAI, it would have ended up much more worse in the long run.

btw, if FB does want to play the poor man's saviour by providing him internet, why not start a ISP with low costs albeit with limited speed, targeted at rural India?? provide all the rural schools with internet??
Or, say start their own cellular network company for providing 2/3G internet at low cost???

that would mean major capital and initial investment, but nothing that FB cannot afford.

 

[Raaabo]

I think it's very important to play devil's advocate.

I have no doubt that the play for Facebook was profit driven. You'd have to be an idiot to take Zuck's words at face value.

However, I think somewhere along the way he's realised that the same 1 billion are being hammered over the head with ads and have a million companies struggling to extract a cent from each of them. I think that's when he decided, screw this, I'm going to get a whole new billion to nurture and make ripe for the picking.

Now of course there's a profit motive. But is is so bad if those new billion get online, even if it's as cash cows?

 

[anirbandd]

I think it's very important to play devil's advocate.

I have no doubt that the play for Facebook was profit driven. You'd have to be an idiot to take Zuck's words at face value.

However, I think somewhere along the way he's realised that the same 1 billion are being hammered over the head with ads and have a million companies struggling to extract a cent from each of them. I think that's when he decided, screw this, I'm going to get a whole new billion to nurture and make ripe for the picking.

Now of course there's a profit motive. But is is so bad if those new billion get online, even if it's as cash cows?

umm sorry.. i just edited my comment..

- - - Updated - - -

but my comment is now even more inline with your views.

as you said, FB as a corporation is as malicious as can be possible [as is illustrated by their underhand practice to get mails sent from unsuspecting users] and if they had not been restrained by TRAI, it would have ended up much more worse in the long run.

btw, if FB does want to play the poor man's saviour by providing him internet, why not start a ISP with low costs albeit with limited speed, targeted at rural India?? provide all the rural schools with internet??
Or, say start their own cellular network company for providing 2/3G internet at low cost???

that would mean major capital and initial investment, but nothing that FB cannot afford.

- - - Updated - - -

btw, refresh my memory.. what were the sites that were initially offered in the free basics package??

 

[Anorion]

nah don't want any more illiterate people on the internets

facebook could have offered free basics platform in India while following the principles of net neutrality, it's a lost opportunity for fb.

 

[sam_738844]

Despite the fact that I believe the net to not be neutral anyway. I think this at least brings clarity. However, it means that you've taken away any long term profit hopes for providers, which in the end results in them not caring about anything but making more money off existing subscribers.

I think this will actually make the price of bandwidth stagnate for a bit, instead of it becoming cheaper. I hope I'm wrong.

As usual, popularity won, and the voice of the connected was used to decide the fate of those who aren't connected. The haves decided on what the have-nots deserve or don't deserve.

I just hope that in a decade or two, we don't find ourselves lagging behind countries worse than us now, only because they allowed a corporate to make a profit as a means of connecting and educating a lot of their poorer population. Then we will have net-neutrality, but not net-parity with the rest of the world.

I read your article. About how the internet was never neutral and the illusion of the said neutrality has been a veil of prerogatives and its justifications. I believe its true, I believe its also true the Internet is albeit fair about how it contained the information about it being subjectively neutral/non-neutral and allowed itself open to all perceptions. I think what TRAI did is only good where Telecommunication companies in a country seek and look forward to have exploitable ends to use the privilege of platforms like free-basics. The notion that started the war was not unfair, its just that our soil is not ready for it. I would have been happy to see a person rushing in a hospital make use of a high-bandwidth search for a legit blood-bank while some shady individual hitting on p0rn is is enjoying a better experience. But I would also hate to see that I had to subscribe for some special "unlimited TV" package to enjoy netflix and otherwise would have to stream with a victimized and sluggish Internet.

 

[Raaabo]

nah don't want any more illiterate people on the internets

facebook could have offered free basics platform in India while following the principles of net neutrality, it's a lost opportunity for fb.

Dude, that's kind of elitist don't you think

Of course they could have done free basics in line with net neutrality, which I think is a limiting and stupid definition for the internet anyway. But then how would that make them any money? This was always about them making money after all, and I was just trying to find out what really is wrong with them and others getting richer, so long as we get a more educated society as a result.

 

[techie_85]

I'm middle class, I assume you're middle class. Would you be happy with a watered down experience without JavaScript and just access to Wikipedia and some crap sites?

Which middle class Indian would be OK with that?

The ones that mostly use internet for FB and checking mails. More importantly those who have smartphones but don't have internet yet. Since they don't know what the internet is to begin with, they'll never know what they're missing. It's target audience are those with little to no internet experience, and if Facebook had it's way, those people would have continued to stay that way.