Concerns raised on the new OTT Regulations by TRAI
OTT (Over-The-Top) services:
- It describes media services that are provided to viewers directly over the Internet. With OTT, the kinds of businesses that have typically served as controllers or distributors of this kind of content—cable, broadcast, and satellite television platforms—are circumvented.
- Examples include streaming services like Disney+ Hotstar, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
- Due to the fact that rival OTT services are sometimes offered for free, telecom companies have been facing pressure to increase their revenue from more than a decade now from traditional streams like SMS and phone calls. In order to handle the increased data traffic, they have had to make significant investments in improving their infrastructure, but they haven’t always seen an increase in revenue.
- They also claim that there is an unfair playing field because OTT services are not subject to the same taxes and licencing requirements. However, the adoption of OTT services has resulted in a rise in data usage, which is generating an increasing amount of income for telecom firms.
Faulty justification that compromises net neutrality:
- The telecom firms’ demand that OTT platforms and content providers be required to contribute to bandwidth costs has been rekindled in response to the OTT survey. They contend that streaming services are freeloaders, profiting off the infrastructure that telecommunications firms provide and maintain.
- Nevertheless, this reasoning is essentially incorrect and creates a risky precedent that erodes the idea of net neutrality. Telecom firms offer access to the Internet, not ownership of it.
- By purchasing data plans, customers pay the telecoms for access services. Demand for Internet access is created by OTT platforms by providing services that customers want to use. Additionally, they cover the cost of the content delivery networks (CDNs), which build channels that significantly increase the internet’s ability to transmit their material.
- Telecom firms charge consumers for Internet connectivity, taking advantage of this demand and the availability of over-the-top content.
- Telecom providers are free to raise their rates in the event that they are unable to meet expenses; these additional funds should be used for infrastructure upkeep and upgrades. The exchange rate must properly account for both the costs and benefits of a transaction in order for there to be a fair market.
- Therefore, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) may investigate any attempt to seek cross-subsidies rather than fully accounting for the costs.
- Customers are free to select the Internet service provider in the market that gives them the most bandwidth, data volume, and dependability for the lowest cost. Because services in one market cannot be substituted for those in the other, they are considered separate marketplaces.
- Consequently, it makes sense to keep costs apart between these two marketplaces. In addition to being avaricious, telecoms’ attempt to “double dip” by billing both content providers and customers is detrimental to net neutrality.
- The costs paid by OTT platforms giving in to the telcos’ demands will eventually be passed on to subscribers in the form of higher subscription prices or worse service quality for those platforms that are unable or unwilling to pay the toll. Customers who have become dependent on OTT services for professional, educational, and recreational purposes would only suffer as a result of this.
The principle of net neutrality:
- It states that all traffic entering and leaving the Internet must be handled equally by Internet access providers (ISPs). The phrase “net neutrality” was first used by Professor Tim Wu in a 2003 study. According to Wu, the goal of net neutrality is to ensure that all data is handled equally by ISPs and to create a level playing field on the Internet.
- The idea of net neutrality is derived from earlier ideas and concepts related to common carriage, which state that services must be rendered to all clients without discrimination.
TRAI regulation’s foundation:
- The 2016 regulation by TRAI prohibiting discriminatory prices for data services was based on net neutrality. Due to the regulator’s move, Facebook’s Free Basics platform and a few other offers were compelled to be discontinued in India.
- The extensive suggestions made by TRAI were published in 2017 and have played a major role in the adoption of this idea in India. TRAI’s actions were observed by others worldwide.
- In 2018, the Joint Declaration for an Open Internet was approved by TRAI and the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC). Through this memorandum of understanding, the two groups committed to working together to develop technological and policy efforts for net neutrality. Subsequently, net neutrality has been embraced by numerous additional nations.
Way Forward:
- Policymakers should be among the many stakeholders who must understand the long-term consequences of caving in to the opportunistic demands of telecom firms. In particular, in nations like India where the Internet will be the carrier of all Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), upholding the principles of net neutrality is essential to creating an environment that is favourable to innovation, competition, and consumer welfare. It also preserves the spirit of an open Internet.
