|
The debate over net neutrality has not yet entered mainstream public discourse in India. Yet, in mature net savvy countries, it is already a hotly debated topic that has polarized opinion on both sides and might turn out to be one existential debate we may have to contend with in
the not so distant future. A DARE analysis.
What is net neutrality all about?
It is a question that concerns the ownership and control of the Internet. At its heart is the principle that if one user pays a certain amount for a certain level of connectivity and another user does the same, the two should be able to connect at that designated speed. Thus far, to put it simply, the Internet, in the last twenty years of its existence, has remained neutral. The fact that no one entity, government or corporate, owns it and the haphazard manner in which it has grown around the world, has ensured and guaranteed its neutrality. This is not to say that there has been no governmental censorship. Sure, countries from North Korea to Pakistan (and even India) routinely censor websites. Yet, such censorship is not a result of the very infrastructure of the Internet, both physical and otherwise, being tweaked by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) or web companies themselves, to censor content. Thus far, the non-government owned ISPs in most of the world (except countries with undemocratic totalitarian regimes) have remained "dumb tubes" to quote Robert Evans of Cracked.com. In other words, most ISPs the world over have not censored content to suit themselves. People can pretty much surf anything from most parts of the world—high culture to porn, important breaking news to boring banalities, they are all at our fingertips, at the click of a button, and the network does not differentiate between content, favoring one over the other. So what is the problem? Simply put, the ISPs, at least in the developed West, do not anymore want to remain providers of dumb pipes. They want a share of the pie. And in their defense, they put a very seemingly convincing case of how providing infrastructure and bandwidth costs a lot of money and that they must start charging both users and content providers (at least the big ones) variable rates. Individual users across the world (including India) already pay variable rates for different speed limits. Content providers on the other hand, do not pay different rates for different kinds of content that they dish out. They pay the ISPs mutually agreed flat rates. And per se the ISPs network does not prioritize one content provider over another. There's just one superhighway for all of the Internet's traffic to ply on. But if the American and European ISPs have their way, that could change, in their favor. In other words, there could be more than one highway—one for the privileged users and content providers who can pay more and the other for lesser mortals. And it doesn't end here. The ISPs want control over what content they want you to consume. In other words, if a certain website does not conform to your ISPs business interests, the ISP can simply block it. Large number of people across the world are now getting connected to the Internet via mobile phones. And in countries like India, considering the prohibitively high cost of owning a desktop PC or a laptop for most people and the high capital input required for laying a high-speed fiber optic network, the mobile phone will be the preferred mode of connecting to the Internet. And with 3G set to become a reality, more and more people will download high volume content, thus clogging the already overburdened networks. Even if the cost of acquisition of bandwidth is factored into the tarrif structure, there is a possibility that the service provider could put certain types pf downloads on a premium, thereby jeopardizing net neutrality.
What can happen if the Internet loses its neutrality?
A lot actually. The very fact that the Internet has come thus far from when, two decades ago, Tim Berners-Lee invented it in his lab at CERN, is because no one has controlled it consciously and the world at large has been left to use it whichever way it wants to. And what has happened to the Internet is certainly not unique to it. All technical innovations that revolutionized society, had their time under the sun when they were left free of governmental and/or corporate control—radio and television, just to name two. Corporate organizations have forever hijacked technology for their own commercial benefit. Not only does it erode the freedom of the consumer to choose, it also puts all future technical innovations squarely in the hands of corporate organizations and therefore subjugates the same to corporate interests. How big is the problem in the US? Although, the problem itself is not yet apparent, several loopholes in the American legislation on this issue have raised alarm bells. Many commentators have rightly expressed their concern that if the corporatization of the Internet are not checked in time, it may just be too late. The Internet in the US has become ubiquitous with practically everyone connected either directly or indirectly to the World Wide Web. Most of the global Internet giants are Americans but cater to customers all over the world. So, if say, Google is asked to pay more for the same service that say Yahoo or Microsoft gets at a comparatively cheaper rate, it can potentially seriously jeopardize Google's market share because Google's host of sites will open slower than Yahoo's or Microsoft's. On the other end, if your ISP has a corporate tie-up with say CNN, it might choose to block you from visiting Fox's or PBS' website, in which case the Internet becomes more or less a one way street.
What is the legislative scene in the US vis-a-vis net neutrality?
In the recent past, net neutrality activists have got a shot in the arm with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) led by the new Chairman Julius Genachowski (an Obama appointee) announcing new guidelines in September 2009, under a comprehensive National Broadband Plan, which favors net neutrality. The latest amendments have added two important clauses to existing guidelines—the non-discrimination principle (i.e. ISPs cannot discriminate with respect to content) and transparency principle (which relates to disclosure norms). Yet, these FCC guidelines only cover wired networks and not the wireless ones. And with the US already moving toward the fourth generation LTE (Long Term Evolution) technology, the regulatory authority would have to move fast to cover up vulnerable gaps. Moreover, the FCC guidelines are "principles" that are not enforceable by law.
What do the opponents of net neutrality say?
There is a strong corporate backed global lobby that vociferously opposes the concept of net neutrality. Their main argument is that since some type of data is profoundly more important than most other data, the former data packets should be given priority over the latter. An often cited scenario is this: Suppose a doctor is performing a life-saving surgery say in remote Africa, using a robotic arm, should the data packets pertaining to his data enjoy the same priority as say that of a person downloading popular music? This effectively means that the anti-net neutrality lobbyists want to end the "one highway for all" concept that has been the guiding force behind the spread of the Internet. The anti-net neutrality activists allege that the issue is being whipped up for no reason and that it is "a controversy-seeking a problem." Yet, it is important that the citizenry and governments do their bit to preempt an issue that can potentially raise its head. Further, they argue that any preemptive regulations tantamount to state intervention and hinder free flow of market forces.
What is being done about it in the US?
Net neutrality activists across the Americas and Europe are using all forums available to them to sensitize the public about the enormity of the issue at hand. Several US lawmakers and the Chairman of the Federal Communication (FCC) seem to be lending a sympathetic ear to them. The situation is in a flux though and the jury is therefore still out.
So why should we in India be worried?
First, whatever happens to the Internet in the US, directly affects the rest of the wold, including India, as US-based websites dominate the Internet. So, if some websites run slower than others, there is bound to be a difference in speeds in India as well. Also, if network speeds within the US do not remain neutral and there is a bifurcation, it is bound to affect global traffic one way or the other. Moreover, the Information Technology Act in India presently has no clear guidelines that prohibits a local ISP from trying to control the Internet to suit his business interests. In February last year, eyebrows were raised when AirTel, a leading ISP introduced its "Fair Usage Policy" which seeks to curb the amount you download even on an "unlimited" plan. The way it works is this: If say for an "unlimited plan" with a minimal rental of Rs 1099 (before taxes), which offers you 512 kbps speed, you download data exceeding 100GB for a given billing cycle, your download speed will be halved for the remainder of the billing cycle, after crossing the said limit. Not only does that tantamount to the ISP allowing the consumer lesser amount of data transfer than was promised, but is also effectively curbing your ability to download high volume content like videos, third party application software, games, etc at optimal speeds. Further, in the recent past a popular Indian comic-porn site was blocked by BSNL and AirTel. Whereas ISPs are legally allowed to block online pornographic content in India, it does establish the ability of the ISP to censor content at free will under a government directive or for their commercial interests. As mentioned, in India the real upthrust in Internet access will come in over the mobile platform with 500 million Indians already using the mobile phones. So the challenge is to break the stranglehold of the mobile phone operator over the customer so that he is free to choose between operators and also tariff plans at will. Moreover, with 3G coming in, the mobile applications market will see a major uptake. Analysts like Rajesh Jain point out that for this to happen, an open publishing platform for applications will have to be introduced and made widely available to consumers independent of the telecom operators. Moreover, money collection systems, independent of the operator, will have to be instituted, so that money directly reaches the application provider, bypassing the telecom operator. This would necessitate that the regulator and the industry come on the same page and forge ahead jointly so as to ensure that the information superhighway does not become the preserve of vested interests.
Related items:
Older items:
|
Strategy 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
