Net neutrality is important. However, it does not seem to be on the priority list of most of us or our politicians, probably because it is not well understood. Should internet access be legally classified as an opt-in service or a public utility? Should the broadband Internet services be regulated as a public utility, similar to the way electricity, gas, and the water supply are regulated? Should we have a dumb network with little or no control or management of its use patterns or it should be intelligent enough to filter as one may decide? Who should regulate such services? For the record, Tim Wu, a Columbia Law School professor first coined the term ‘net neutrality’.
Should we not have an open, equal internet for everyone, regardless of device, application or platform used and content consumed? A public information network will be most useful if all content, websites, and platforms such as mobile devices, video game consoles, etc. are treated equally. Does it exist today? Are not ISPs restricting or limiting bandwidth based on specific applications or services? Simply put, to serve their own interests, the ISP’s must not restrict access or change access speeds or block content for some users. They must not make special arrangements with a few companies to give them improved network speeds or better access.
What benefits accrue if we follow Net Neutrality? For one, Information freedom, free speech and idea sharing can be ensured. The ISPs can be restricted from deciding what their customers see, access or read on the internet. Next, Business freedom and consumer choice can be ensured. Obviously if access to some sites and content is blocked, a competitive disadvantage may arise. Conversely, such companies may have to pay much more if they need access. Net neutrality then seeks to provide a level playing field by keeping the large, and influential companies from forming cartels that promote their products or services. It can also uphold standardization of Internet data transmission which is essential for its growth. Finally greater innovation can also accrue as a benefit. Smaller companies will benefit. Assuming, the ISPs play favourites, new start-ups and new technology-based companies will always be at a disadvantage. Either pay more or be blocked out.
Net neutrality regulations are referred to as “common carrier” regulations. The regulations do not block all services. Opt-in/opt-out services exist on the end user side, and filtering is done on a local basis such as filtering sensitive material for minors. The 2018, regulations, probably the best, guarantee free and open internet and are expected to help the culture of start-ups and innovation. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) prohibits internet service providers from offering or charging tariffs that are discriminatory both for data services on the basis of content and also entering into contracts which may have similar outcomes. There are financial disincentives for breaches of this regulation. There is an exception however. It does not ban differential pricing in case of public emergency or when emergency services are required. Still there are any number of examples that can be cited where net neutrality has been violated.
Facebook’s Internet.org include Aircel’s Wikipedia Zero along with Aircel’s free access to Facebook and WhatsApp, Airtel’s free access to Google, and Reliance’s free access to Twitter are all such examples. Even Facebook’s Free Basics program is a violation, based on its provision of free-of-cost access to dozens of sites, in collaboration with telecom operators.
The problem is complex since communications technology allows several possibilities. The cable and Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) operators may have a legitimate right to manage their networks for maximum efficiency. Some ISPs already prioritize some traffic to maintain quality of service. What is important is that it cannot result in discrimination. Whether one connects to Netflix, Internet Archive, or a friend’s blog, the ISP has to treat them all the same. Many ISP’s have in place a two-tiered internet service model. They charge a premium fee for priority placement and faster speed across the carrier network pipes that they own. It means that ISPs legally create internet “fast lanes” which give preferential treatment for certain companies to promote their own services to their customers. All this of course is done for an extra charge. Such services could result in “market distortion” that may not be in public interest. It could even hinder innovation and harm such companies that are not a part of it.
On the other hand, ISPs and mobile service providers also have zero rating schemes in place where customers are not charged for data use on specific websites and services. Websites and services are then zero-rated and receive more traffic. Actually, the consumers are given a choice of using a slower dial-up internet service or pay a premium price for faster speed over broadband coaxial cable, DSL or fiber-optic services. Have we not seen seemingly good limited data plans? The catch however, is that they come with their own, affiliates or popular sites. What is promoted on these sites can change perceptions and even create motivated thought processes.
Can net neutrality reduce the ISP’s incentive to build out the Internet, or reduce competition in the marketplace, and raise operating costs which then would pass on to the users?
All said and done, net neutrality is essential for a democratic exchange of ideas and knowledge, for promotion of ethical business practices, fair competition and innovation. Most affected if net neutrality is not the norm are the general public, besides human rights organizations, NGO’s, consumer rights advocates, software and technology companies, large internet companies, like Netflix, Yahoo, Twitter, Microsoft and Amazon.
What can be done? An intelligent combination of policy instruments will help political and economic objectives central to the network neutrality debate. Add public opinion, it can then be very effective. We must aim for an “open Internet” where full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it should be easily accessible to all individuals, companies, and organizations. “Open Internet” will ensure net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of Internet censorship, and low barriers to entry. On the other hand, a “closed Internet” is where established persons, corporations, or governments favour certain uses, restrict access to necessary web standards, artificially degrade some services, or explicitly filter out content. It is up to us to decide what we desire in our country.