Telecom Live
1004-05, New Delhi House 27 Barakhamba Road New Delhi-110 001
e-mail: [email protected]
Telecom Watchdog
Corr. Add: B-5/51, Paschim Vihar New Delhi-110 063
Mobile: 81-301-67111
e-mail: [email protected] Response to TRAI’s Consultation Paper
“Regulatory Framework for Over-The-Top (OTT) services” Dated March 27, 2015
To, Date: April 24, 2015
The Chairman
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi – 110002
Kind attn: Mr Rahul Khullar
Sir
1. In response to the above stated Consultation Paper, at the outset we would like to state that the said Consultation Paper is nothing but yet another move under your leadership to make the communication services expensive for the consumers. The experience of the consumers during your tenure has been extremely painful as can be seen from some of your anti-consumer actions: -
(i) You allowed all the big operators to hike tariff from time to time especially after the cancellation of 122 telecom licenses by the Supreme Court order of February 2012. You did not do anything to stop tariff hike.
(ii) The then telecom minister Mr Kapil Sibal had all the time been talking of Nation Wide Free Roaming. But, you did not do anything on this except capping the roaming tariff, which in any case (after capping) were still much higher than the actual prevailing tariff.
(iii) You facilitated SMS tariff hike by levying Termination Charges (TC) under the guise of controlling Unsolicited Commercial Communication (UCC) which became effective from June 1, 2013. As a result, the SMS tariff became 15 to 20 times higher. SMS, which prior to that were available at
under 1 paisa per SMS, is now priced at an average 16 paisa (refer para 2.38 of your consultation paper under reply). Only after you made SMS services expensive, the users were not left with any choice but to hook-on to services such as WhatsApp.
(iv) TRAI in its affidavit of October 31, 2011 filed (by your predecessor) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that it plans to make Termination Charges ‘0 paisa’ per call by 2014. So, the regulatory move was towards ‘Bill-And-Keep’ (BAK) approach even for calls. This would have brought down the tariff of mobile voice calls. But you are continuing with TC (expensive) mode.
(v) After the recent auction, you have been encouraging the telecom operators for steep hike in tariff, but the Government (Telecom Minister & Secretary-DoT) has been stating that the tariff hike beyond 1.30 paisa per minute will not be justified.
(vi) You have not taken any action to stop these operators charging abnormally high tariff for Static IP addresses. Bharti Charges over Rs 430 per month in Delhi, whereas these operators pay much less than 1 paisa per IP Address as onetime fee.
(vii) You have not taken any action to issue directives to these operators who provide “chotta recharge” after substantial deductions ranging from (21% to 13% as shown in table below), whereas for other values (Rs 65 onwards), full talk-time is provided. Chotta recharge is generally availed by the poorest of the poor people and these operators do not mind fleecing them too in this manner.
Deductions on Chotta Recharge (Rs) We Pay (Rs) We Get (Rs) Deduction (%)
10 7.90 21 20 15.80 21 30 23.70 21 50 41.50 17 60 50.40 16 100 86.00 14 200 175.00 13
All your above actions helped three telecom companies – Bharti Airtel, Vodafone and Idea – at the cost of consumers.
2. You are retiring on May 13, 2015 but before that you have released yet another anti-consumer Consultation Paper on the issue of levying of charges for services such as WhatsApp, Viber, social network sites, ecommerce sites, etc. TRAI has tagged all these services under “Over The Top (OTT)” category, and in response we will refer them as “Edge Services”. You have asked for responses to the Consultation Paper by April 24, 2015 and Counter Comments by May 8, 2015. All the 20 questions framed by you in this Consultation Paper reflect a pre-decided mindset as if you have already made up your mind to regulate these services and the Consultation is just a legal formality mandated under the TRAI Act. Your target is clear. You want to put “Edge Services” players under regulations and make services expensive for the consumers. It would not be surprising if you issue regulations just before you retire. Even if you keep the decision pending for your successor, the kinds of questions you have framed do not reflect highly about you in person. You are helping the inclement telecom players who always want to fleece their customers.
3. Contrary to TRAI’s Consultation Paper, your US counterpart (Federal Communication Commission or FCC), in their May 2014 Consultation Paper had raised a fundamental issue, “What is the right public policy to ensure that the
Internet remains open? Nearly 4 million Americans participated in the process and majority of them favoured continuing with the policy of open access. There was general consensus on the need for FCC to provide certainty with clear, enforceable rules. Finally, on March 12, 2015, FCC notified new rules noticing that three specific practices invariably harm the open Internet - Blocking, Throttling, and Paid Prioritization. The new rules banned each of them, applying the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service. Thus, FCC is clear in its thinking that internet must remain open which means the telecom operators should continue to act like open carriers, and the OTT players should continue to be allowed to provide unrestricted services on the edge of their networks. The FCC is convinced that this approach would be beneficial to all and attract investments and innovations.
4. The timing of TRAI issuing this Consultation Paper is highly inappropriate. There was no urgency in the matter as the DoT was in the process of formulating its
own views before seeking TRAI’s views. The DoT felt that the whole gamut of issues involving OTT players may not be under TRAI’s purview and DoT needed to adopt definitive stand on the issues involved. For this purpose, in January 2015 itself, the DoT had constituted a six-Member committee to look at the policy issues: -
Committee Members:
a. Mr AK Bhargava, Member (T) Chairman b. Mr AK Mittal, Sr DDG, TEC Member c. Mr Sashi Ranjan Kumar, Jt Secy Member d. Mr Umashankar, Jt Secy (T) Member e. Mr Narendra Nath, DDG (Security) Member
f. Mr RM Agarwal, DDG (NT) Member & Convenor
The above committee was given the following mandate (Terms of Reference):
a. To examine the pursuit of net-neutrality from a public policy objective, its advantages and limitations.
b. To examine the economic impact on the telecom Sector that arises from the existence of a regulated telecom services sector and unregulated content and applications sector, including over-the-top (OTT) services. c. To examine, assess and specify qualifications on the applicability of the
principal of net-neutrality from the security, traffic management, economic, privacy and other stand-points.
d. To recommend overall policy, regulatory and technical responses in the light of examination and assessment on the above issues.
The above committee is supposed to submit its report by May 15, 2015. After the formation of the above committee, there was no need for TRAI to issue a Consultation Paper on the same subject. One wonders why you (Mr Khullar) are in a hurry, especially when you are on the verge of your retirement.
In view of the above, in all fairness, TRAI should withdraw this Consultation Paper and wait for Policy directives from the government on this important national issue. In any case, all the 20 issues framed by TRAI for Consultation are biased and go against the very principle of Open Access.
We should not forget the message of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi “Best Governance is No Governance”. In any case, our response to the Questions framed in the Consultation Paper on the issue is attached herewith and the same are being submitted without prejudice.
Thanking you
Yours sincerely
For Telecom Live For Telecom Watchdog
Sd/- Sd/-
Dr (Ms) Rashmi Singh Anil Kumar
Editor Secretary
All others Sd/-
Issues identified by Trai in its consultation paper of March 27, 2015
Q1: Is it too early to establish a regulatory framework for OTT services, since internet penetration is still evolving, access speeds are generally low and there is limited coverage of high-speed broadband in the country? Or, should some beginning be made now with a regulatory framework that could be adapted to changes in the future? Please comment with justifications.
A1: Firstly, Over The Top (OTT) services is an improper expression to the kind of services referred to in this Consultation Paper. These can be better termed as “Edge Services.” In this response, we will use the term of “Edge Services” in place of OTT services.
Now, coming to the issue raised, it is submitted that barring citing some security concerns, TRAI has not come out with any reason that can justify regulating the Edge Services.
It is submitted that the public policy should be guided by the three overarching objectives: India needs more broadband, better broadband, and open broadband networks. These goals are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive. Without an open internet, there would be less broadband investment and deployment. Regulating Edge Services would discourage investments and innovations. Nothing should be done that may threaten the existence of Open Internet Access.
Recently, on March 12, 2015, the US Federal Communications Commission amended the 47 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under which it further strengthened the concept of Open Internet replacing certain parts of its earlier order of December 23, 2010. The headline itself has been changed to “Protecting And Promoting The Open Internet” replacing the earlier headline of “Preserving The Open Internet”. The Section 8.1 was also amended so that freedom to innovate and deployment without permission is ensured: -
Purpose: The purpose of this Part is to protect and promote the Internet as
an open platform enabling consumer choice, freedom of expression, end-user control, competition, and the freedom to innovate without permission, and
thereby to encourage the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability and remove barriers to infrastructure investment.
The earlier provision that was replaced is as follows: -
The purpose of this Part is to preserve the Internet as an open platform enabling consumer choice, freedom of expression, end-user control, competition, and the freedom to innovate without permission.
The US Regulation is becoming the global standard and industry norm in the global community of nations and India should not do anything that is restrictive. The internet’s power to do good and spur business we have already seen.
Q2: Should the OTT players offering communication services (voice, messaging and video call services) through applications (resident either in the country or outside) be brought under the licensing regime? Please comment with justifications.
A2. No licensing regime is necessary for Edge Services. “Ease of doing business” should be the methodology followed instead of devising ways to make the services artificially expensive. In addition to what has been stated in ‘A1,’ it is submitted that the Edge Service players offer various communication services at affordable costs. Such OTT players cover their costs through advertisements, etc, while the Telecom Operators get paid in terms of Data Usage. There are no revenue losses to the government as the payment is made to the government on the Data Usage.
Security is a different issue altogether which is being ensured through Lawful Interception Monitoring (LIM) equipment provided by Telecom Operators. Even now, whenever the Security Agencies demand certain blocking or information, the same is complied with by the Edge Service providers. Even if there are certain gaps, they can be addressed through notifications under the existing laws. No new licensing regime is called for.
An example of Research-in-Motion (RIM) for providing server in India for its BlackBerry Messenger Services was cited by TRAI in this Consultation Paper. Though this was achieved after two years of struggle, but nothing has really come
out of it from security angle. In the process, BlackBerry disappeared from the Indian market benefitting some other competing companies.
Q3: Is the growth of OTT impacting the traditional revenue stream of TSPs? If so, is the increase in data revenues of the TSPs sufficient to compensate for this impact? Please comment with reasons.
A3. It is not TRAI’s mandate to unduly protect the so called “traditional revenue stream” of TSPs. When “Pagers” were extinguished, TRAI did not come forward to protect them. When BSNL & MTNL were losing their traditional revenue of landline, TRAI did not come to protect their revenue streams. Why should TRAI bother about wealthier Telecom Operators?
TRAI has already protected the TSPs enough in the past at the cost of the consumers; be it restrictive VoIP services, making SMS expensive, keeping mobile under TC mode (instead of BAK mode), keeping tariff of roaming services at higher levels, etc. Already consumers have suffered at the hands of these Telecom Operators and TRAI actively colluded with them.
All the Telecom Operators are well equipped to innovate and they should be asked to adopt futuristic technologies or disappear. Instead of protection, they need to be told to be innovative. Instead of being sluggish, they should be told to roll up their sleeves and provide services keeping in mind the requirement of youth and the unconnected population of India. They should know in advance what is going to be relevant in future and take effective steps to face competition from such services. They do not need any protection. Rather, they should be asked to compete with the Edge Services providers by lowering SMS rates and through cheaper unrestrictive VoIP calling services.
In any case let us see what TRAI has said in its Consultation Paper on local calls, international calls, and SMS.
For Domestic Calls: At para 2.24 TRAI has stated, “In India however, .. the impact on voice services is not considerable because of three reasons. Firstly, India has one of the lowest voice calling rates (at the rate of Rs.0.40 to 0.60 realised rates) in
the world. Secondly, the mobile internet penetration is only around 20%, that too predominantly on 2G. Thirdly, the Quality of Service (QoS) of such OTT apps is not as good as traditional voice services offered by TSPs.”
Our comments:
For International Calls: At para 2.24 TRAI has stated, “However, some amount of cannibalisation (is there) on international calling, where rates are substantially higher. The revenue from international calls is less than 10% of an Indian operator's total revenue. Bharti Airtel recorded 2.89 billion international outgoing minutes in the quarter ended June 2013, down from 3.79 billion minutes in the previous quarter while Idea's outgoing minutes fell 7% sequentially in April-June 2013. Reliance Communications' international outgoing minutes also dropped nearly 10% in a quarter in the same period. The drop could be directly attributed to the growth of free calling services such as Skype or Viber.”
Our comments: Admittedly, expensive international call offered by the TSPs is the only reason for decline in their market share, whereas Skype and Viber offer cheaper tariffs. This does not mean that TRAI should devise methods to make Skype and Viber calls expensive for users. Rather, TRAI should encourage even TSPs to give an option to consumers to use shared IP based networks (as an alternative to dedicated Circuit Switched Networks) for making cheaper international calls. It is as simple as that. There should be no difficulty in telling TSPs that they can do this. It is allowed even under their existing licenses.
For SMS: At para 2.32 & 2.33 TRAI has stated, “2.32. The SMS traffic for the TSPs have shown declining trends in the recent past. … The messaging traffic fell from 5,346 million in June 2013 to 4,367 million in June 2014, a decline of 18.3%. This decrease can be attributed almost entirely to an increase in traffic of OTT messaging apps.
2.33. According to the rating agency CARE, the share of SMS revenue in the total revenue of TSPs in the country in the case of GSM operators has decreased from 5.84% in October-December 2012 to 3.39% in October-December 2013 and from
1.80% to 1.66% for CDMA operators. This decline in SMS revenue has an implication of approximately Rs 3,700-4,000 crores per annum.”
Our comments: Drawing comparison from June 2013 smacks of criminal conspiracy to hide facts. Mr Khullar knows very well the real reason for the decline in SMS traffic for the TSPs after June 2013. To favour the three companies – Bharti Airtel, Vodafone and Idea – he had made SMS expensive by over 16 times. This he did by mandating switching over from Bill And Keep (BAK) mode to Termination Charges (TC) mode for SMS. Barring the three operators, all other operators were opposed to this TC regime. All the consumers opposed it. Yet Mr Khullar did it for the benefit of the three top operators. This he did under the garb of controlling Unsolicited Commercial Communications (UCC). Strangely, after hiking SMS tariff by 16 times, Mr Khullar expects the SMS traffic to rise!
In para 2.38 of Trai’s consultation paper, it is stated that “The average revenue earned by a TSP for an SMS is around 16 paisa.” Now let us see, prior to June 2013, what was the tariff. Various packages offered by the telcos during pre-TC mode (ie BAK mode) are shown in the following table.
Rates of SMS in Tamil Nadu under BAK mode Vodafone Airtel BSNL
Plan charges (in Rs) 38 61 36 46 56 No. of Free SMS 3,000 5,000 3,000 4,500 6,000 Rate/SMS (in Paisa) 1.27 1.22 1.20 1.02 0.93
Validity (days) 30 60 30 45 60
It is simple to make SMS cheaper – revert back to BAK mode. But instead it seems Mr Khullar’s intention is to make expensive the Edge Services too for the consumers by putting them under undesirable regulations.
Simply put, all the Telecom Operators can take Skype and WhatsApp head-on without seeking any regulatory control.
Q4: Should the OTT players pay for use of the TSPs network over and above data charges paid by consumers? If yes, what pricing options can be adopted? Could such options include prices based on bandwidth consumption? Can prices be used as a means of product / service differentiation? Please comment with justifications. A4. Absolutely No. Nothing should be done to make services to the end consumers expensive. Rather TSPs should be encouraged to compete with such Edge Service providers as explained in A3.
Q5: Do you agree that imbalances exist in the regulatory environment in the operation of OTT players? If so, what should be the framework to address these issues? How can the prevailing laws and regulations be applied to OTT players (who operate in the virtual world) and compliance enforced? What could be the impact on the economy? Please comment with justifications.
A5. Imbalances can never be removed and perfected in each & every case. A situation has not arisen when any regulatory intervention is required in this case. For security & safety, existing laws are adequate to deal with any situation. Nothing should be done to make services to the end consumers expensive. Rather TSPs should be encouraged to compete with such Edge Service providers as explained in A3.
Q6: How should the security concerns be addressed with regard to OTT players providing communication services? What security conditions such as maintaining data records, logs, etc., need to be mandated for such OTT players? And, how can compliance with these conditions be ensured if the applications of such OTT players reside outside the country? Please comment with justifications.
A6. Security is a different issue altogether which is being ensured through Lawful Interception Monitoring (LIM) equipment provided by Telecom Operators. Even now, whenever the Security Agencies demand certain blocking or information, the same is complied with by the Edge Service providers. Even if there are certain gaps, they can be addressed through notifications under the existing laws. No new licensing regime is called for.
Q7: How should the OTT players offering app services ensure security, safety and privacy of the consumer? How should they ensure protection of consumer interest? Please comment with justifications.
A7. Users understand the risks associated with the cheaper services such as free downloads from risky portals, etc. If TRAI is really concerned about consumers’ interest, it should work on how to reduce the tariff further. On the contrary, we see Mr Khullar making comments all the time in favour of tariff hike post-auction. Most of the operators are providing static IP addresses at abnormally high monthly rents compared to what they pay as one time nominal charge to the government. TRAI should address such issues for the consumers.
Q8: In what manner can the proposals for a regulatory framework for OTTs in India draw from those of ETNO, referred to in para 4.23 or the best practices summarised in para 4.29? And, what practices should be proscribed by regulatory fiat? Please comment with justifications.
4.22. Alarmed by the growth of OTT services, European Telecommunications Network Operators’ (ETNO) has demanded changes in the regulatory and interconnection pricing regime that enable OTT services to use their infrastructure with no return for them.
4.23. It is in this context that ETNO has put forward a pricing proposal that would enable them to negotiate pricing schemes with OTT providers. Specifically, ETNO put forward three inter-related demands:
a) Sending networks, such as content providers, OTT services and other application providers, must be required to pay “fair compensation for carried traffic” to interconnect with network operators (the “sending party network pays,” or SPNP principle);
b) New interconnection models should be allowed providing for end-to-end Quality of Service (QoS) delivery for send-to-ending parties willing to pay a premium; and
c) Governments should allow these interconnection and carriage arrangements to be negotiated between network operators and information services without regulatory interference.
4.29. Though interconnection and pricing issues for OTT services on mobile networks have not been satisfactorily resolved in any jurisdiction, comparative analysis identifies the contours of emerging “best practices” in terms of access, interconnection and pricing for OTT services. Other key practices include:
a) Separate regulatory practices for communication services and non-communication services (e.g., Germany, France).
b) Use of price discrimination on traffic to ensure development of broadband infrastructure (e.g. United Kingdom, Korea).
c) Use of a FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) approach in dealing with regulatory issues concerning OTT players (e.g. Korea, ETNO).
A8. TRAI should have referred to response of US Regulator instead of referring to the demands of a telecom operator association like European Telecommunications Network Operators (ETNO). Such operators will keep demanding more & more. There is no end to it. COAI is doing the same in India. There is no difference between ETNO & COAI. Nothing should be done to make services to the end consumers expensive. Rather TSPs should be encouraged to compete with such Edge Service providers as explained in A3.
Q9: What are your views on net-neutrality in the Indian context? How should the various principles discussed in para 5.47 be dealt with? Please comment with justifications.
5.47 User choice, innovation without permission, and low costs of application innovation are essential to maintain and preserve the factors that have allowed the internet to serve as a platform for application innovation, free speech and decentralized economic, social, cultural and political interaction. Therefore, the following principles need to be ensured under any regime:
1. Effective competition amongst TSPs and user choice which can be ensured by:
Sufficient information available to enable consumers to make the right purchasing decisions; and
Consumers should be able to act on this information by switching TSPs where appropriate.
2. Transparency: Network Providers need to declare all their practices on traffic management. Ofcom has published six principles for the publication of consumer information on traffic management. It suggests that consumer information should be:
Appropriate: TSPs should disclose all information, and only such information, that a consumer needs to make an informed decision. Accessible: basic information should be available at the point of
purchase, and more detailed technical information should be readily available online or on request.
Understandable: information should be simple enough for consumers to be able to understand the practical impact of traffic management policies on the way they may use the internet service. Verifiable: consumers or third parties should be able to verify any
information provided.
Comparable: consumers should be able to compare information provided by different providers.
Current: the information available to consumers should be up-to date, both at the point of sale and subsequently.
3. Switching costs: For competition to affect the traffic management practices used by TSPs, consumers need to be able to act on their experiences and information by switching providers. If two TSPs differ only in their traffic management techniques, in a competitive market, consumers should be able to switch the TSP without undue costs or other barriers.
4. Quality of service assurances: There is a concern that if prioritization by TSPs becomes widespread, then the un-prioritized traffic will be so degraded that the Content and Application Providers (CAPs) that do not participate in prioritization will suffer competitively. This “dirt track” argument gives rise to the question of whether to introduce measures that ensure a certain base level of quality of service. There may be a more general need for these measures where degradation, hindering or slowing down warrants the introduction of a minimum quality of service requirement.
A9. The references made above cannot be applied in the Indian context at all. We need absolute net-neutrality. We are at an extremely low level of internet penetration and at extremely low level of internet speeds.
Net neutrality (NN) should generally be construed to mean that TSPs must treat all internet traffic on an equal basis, no matter its type or origin of content or means used to transmit packets. All points in a network should be able to connect to all other points in the network and service providers should be able to deliver traffic from one point to another seamlessly, without any differentiation on speed, access or price. The principle simply should mean that all internet traffic should be treated equally.
The US, pioneer of the internet technology, has been following the principle of net neutrality for four decades. To further strengthen the open access, the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in December 2010 came out with rules, which were challenged by Verizon. In 2014, the US court quashed those rules on technical / legal grounds while the court justified FCC’s move on open access and net neutrality. Immediately thereafter in May 2014, FCC came out with a consultation paper on the issue.
The objective of the consultation paper (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) began with a fundamental question: “What is the right public policy to ensure that the Internet remains open? Nearly 4 million Americans participated in the process and majority of
them favoured continuing with the policy of open access. There was general consensus on the need for FCC to provide certainty with clear, enforceable rules.
Finally, on March 12, 2015, FCC notified new rules noticing that three specific practices invariably harm the open Internet - Blocking, Throttling, and Paid Prioritization. The new rules banned each of them, applying the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service.
Q10: What forms of discrimination or traffic management practices are reasonable and consistent with a pragmatic approach? What should or can be permitted? Please comment with justifications.
A10. We need absolute net-neutrality. We are at an extremely low level of internet penetration and at extremely low level of internet speeds. We should remember that we are incapable of even resolving rampant call drop problems and poor quality of voice, what to talk about administering internet traffic at different speeds.
Q11: Should the TSPs be mandated to publish various traffic management
techniques used for different OTT applications? Is this a sufficient condition to ensure transparency and a fair regulatory regime?
A11. We need absolute net-neutrality. We are at an extremely low level of internet penetration and at extremely low level of internet speeds.
Q12: How should the conducive and balanced environment be created such that TSPs are able to invest in network infrastructure and CAPs are able to innovate and grow? Who should bear the network upgradation costs? Please comment with justifications.
A12. If the TSPs want more data bytes and hence more money from their consumers, they will upgrade their network at their cost. It is surprising that TRAI is unnecessarily jumping to a conclusion that the TSPs will not invest in network upgradation. Probably, TRAI is pushing for Termination Charges (TC) regime for Edge Services too, which is against the interest of the consumers. TRAI should ensure that BAK mode continues otherwise the services to the end consumers will become expensive.
Moreover, there is nothing on record to establish that TSPs are unable to invest in network infrastructure due to growth in Edge Services. In response to the same issue, FCC had provided enough evidences of enhanced investments in infrastructure by the TSPs. In this regard, some of the relevant extracts from FCC’s Order dated March 12, 2015 are reproduced below for your ready reference: -
Communications Workers of America & National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (CWA & NAACP) Comments at 4 (“The ‘virtuous circle’. . . has led to nearly $230 billion in capital expenditures by the leading network and edge providers over the three-year period since the Open Internet Order took effect (2011 to 2013). Network providers were responsible for a full 84 per cent of these capital expenditures, or $193 billion.
Some reports indicate that broadband providers invest tens of billions of dollars each year to further extend the reach of their networks, with providers spending a total $1.3 trillion since 1996 and $75 billion in 2013 alone.”
AT&T Comments at 9 (“U.S. investment in broadband networks shows no signs of slowing: USTelecom reports that broadband capital expenditures rose from $64 billion in 2009 to $68 billion in 2012. AT&T has [devoted] more than $20 billion annually to capital investment.”);
CenturyLink Comments at 4-5 (stating that “AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink, alone, report annual capital investment (of which the vast majority is for broadband network build-out) over the last three years in the approximate average amounts of $20 billion, $16 billion, and $3 billion, respectively.
On the cable side, Comcast, Time Warner and Charter report annual broadband network investment of approximate average amounts of $5 billion, $3 billion, and $2 billion, respectively, over this same time period.
Moreover, a University of Pennsylvania report shows that per capita network investment in the United States is more than twice that of Europe.”);
NCTA Comments at 7-8 (“Broadband providers in the U.S. have invested an astounding $1.2 trillion in private capital since 1996 to develop and deploy advanced broadband networks. Over the past two decades, the broadband industry has invested an average of $70 billion a year in our nation’s wired and wireless broadband networks. And this investment is only accelerating; in fact, since 2012, broadband providers in the United States have laid more high-speed fiber cables than in any similar period since 2000.”);
Public Knowledge Comments at 25 (“In June 2013, the number of [wireless] connections with downstream speeds of at least 10 Mbps increased by 118% over June 2012, to 103 million connections, including 45 million mobile connections.
The most recent FCC data on Internet access service shows that the number of mobile Internet subscription connections with speeds over 200 kbps in at least one direction increased by 18% year over year to 181 million.”)
Q13: Should TSPs be allowed to implement non-price based discrimination of services? If so, under what circumstances are such practices acceptable? What restrictions, if any, need to be placed so that such measures are not abused? What measures should be adopted to ensure transparency to consumers? Please comment with justifications.
A13. We need absolute net-neutrality. We are at an extremely low level of internet penetration and at extremely low level of internet speeds.
Q14: Is there a justification for allowing differential pricing for data access and OTT communication services? If so, what changes need to be brought about in the present tariff and regulatory framework for telecommunication services in the country? Please comment with justifications.
A14. We need absolute net-neutrality. We are at an extremely low level of internet penetration and at extremely low level of internet speeds.
Q15: Should OTT communication service players be treated as Bulk User of
Telecom Services (BuTS)? How should the framework be structured to prevent any discrimination and protect stakeholder interest? Please comment with justification. A15. We need absolute net-neutrality. We are at an extremely low level of internet penetration and at extremely low level of internet speeds.
Q16: What framework should be adopted to encourage India specific OTT apps? Please comment with justifications.
A16. We need absolute net-neutrality. We are at an extremely low level of internet penetration and at extremely low level of internet speeds.
Q17: If the OTT communication service players are to be licensed, should they be categorised as ASP or CSP? If so, what should be the framework? Please comment with justifications.
A17. Nothing should be done that increases the cost of service to the users. We need absolute net-neutrality. We are at an extremely low level of internet penetration and at extremely low level of internet speeds.
Q18: Is there a need to regulate subscription charges for OTT communication services? Please comment with justifications.
A18. Absolutely No. Nothing should be done to make services to the end consumers expensive. Rather TSPs should be encouraged to compete with such Edge Service providers as explained in A3.
Q19: What steps should be taken by the Government for regulation of
non-communication OTT players? Please comment with justifications.
A19. Nothing should be done that increases the cost of service to the users. We need absolute net-neutrality. We are at an extremely low level of internet penetration and at extremely low level of internet speeds.
Q20: Are there any other issues that have a bearing on the subject discussed?
A20. There are two connected issues. The first one is that TRAI should issue direction to Bharti Airtel to stop Airtel Zero services. The second one is to permit unrestricted Internet Telephony Services. The existing restriction on scope of the Internet Services Licence restricting Internet Telephony Services without connectivity to Public Switch Telephone Network (PSTN) / Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) in India should be removed.
