The document discusses the issue of net neutrality and the debate around allowing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to discriminate between different kinds of internet traffic. It notes that while net neutrality has been a core principle of the open internet, ISPs want to charge content providers fees to guarantee fast access to their services. This could lead to the creation of fast and slow internet lanes based on fees paid. The document outlines arguments for and against net neutrality. It also discusses the approaches taken by different countries and regions, including recent FCC rules and debates in the US, EU regulations supporting net neutrality, and violations of net neutrality by telecom companies in India in the absence of clear rules.
It is a Presentation On Net Neutrality...
CONTENTS:-
*What is Net Neutrality?
*Why Net Neutrality is important?
*Net Neutrality in India
*History
*TRAI rules in favor of Net Neutrality
*Why should we care?
-Sourav Dey
Mail ID: piyush.kolkata@gmail.com | piyush.kolkata@outlook.com
Mail me for the PPT version.
It is a Presentation On Net Neutrality...
CONTENTS:-
*What is Net Neutrality?
*Why Net Neutrality is important?
*Net Neutrality in India
*History
*TRAI rules in favor of Net Neutrality
*Why should we care?
-Sourav Dey
Mail ID: piyush.kolkata@gmail.com | piyush.kolkata@outlook.com
Mail me for the PPT version.
Just heard about something called NetNeutrality? Want to know more? This presentation includes everything you need including some of interesting facts & contributions done by our volunteers.
Net Neutrality and the Future of the InternetMercatus Center
Net neutrality regulations would mandate that essentially all data on the Internet be treated the same by Internet service providers (ISPs), with many supporters calling on the FCC to prohibit “Internet fast lanes.” But are there situations in which different treatment of broadband traffic is good? What role should the government play in ever-changing broadband markets?
This ppt is to make those people aware who are unknown of the idea of net neutrality......
And please do hit the like icon if you liked the presentation and if not, do leave your compliments so that i can make it better....
Net Neutrality PPT presentation in MIS 3305 on Oct. 13, 2015. Explanation is needed for various slides. However, this slide show presents an overview of what net neutrality is, how the internet works, how ISPs have throttled content providers data traveling through their networks, and the FCC's ruling over the issue.
Talk at 31st Chaos Communication Congress at Hamburg 2014.
see: https://events.ccc.de/congress/2014/Fahrplan/events/6170.html
Our talk will highlight the current debates surrounding net neutrality in Europe, the United States and other parts of the world. We will look at the results of the SaveTheInternet.eu campaign which was lunched a year ago on 30c3. We will discuss various legal protections for net neutrality, look closer at the experience of the Netherlands and we will give an overview of all important open ends of the debate.
Since two years net neutrality is on the agenda of politicians world wide. These are important debates, as net neutrality became one of the central questions about our freedom on the internet. With different faces around the globe we see a trend towards more violations of the neutrality principle which the internet was founded upon. The efforts of telecommunication companies to find new ways to monetize their networks and us users within them are countered in some countries with legislation preventing this new business models.
In 2010, after two years of preparation and a fierce battle, the Dutch
parliament accepted a change to the Telecommunications Act which made net neutrality a principle that was protected by law. In this talk we will take stock after two years of legal protection of net neutrality in The Netherlands. Did it work and do the Dutch now have undiscriminated access to all services on the internet? Has the doomsday scenario of the providers, that subscriptions would become outrageously expensive, become reality? In which cases was the Dutch law enforced?
Are there any loopholes in the Dutch implementation? If others are to
fight for net neutrality, what are the pitfalls to avoid? And, on a more
meta-level, is it enough? Will net neutrality protect your freedom to
access websites and services, or do we need a broader type neutrality?
Net Neutrality Capacity Building SeminarExcel Asama
Promoting Net Neutrality through multi stakeholder capacity building and dialogue is project aimed at contributing to the construction of neutral networks and freedom of expression in Cameroon through training, awareness creation and multi stakeholder discussions.
Project funded by the Web We Want Campaign (webwewant.org)
project website: www.netnogcm.net
Just heard about something called NetNeutrality? Want to know more? This presentation includes everything you need including some of interesting facts & contributions done by our volunteers.
Net Neutrality and the Future of the InternetMercatus Center
Net neutrality regulations would mandate that essentially all data on the Internet be treated the same by Internet service providers (ISPs), with many supporters calling on the FCC to prohibit “Internet fast lanes.” But are there situations in which different treatment of broadband traffic is good? What role should the government play in ever-changing broadband markets?
This ppt is to make those people aware who are unknown of the idea of net neutrality......
And please do hit the like icon if you liked the presentation and if not, do leave your compliments so that i can make it better....
Net Neutrality PPT presentation in MIS 3305 on Oct. 13, 2015. Explanation is needed for various slides. However, this slide show presents an overview of what net neutrality is, how the internet works, how ISPs have throttled content providers data traveling through their networks, and the FCC's ruling over the issue.
Talk at 31st Chaos Communication Congress at Hamburg 2014.
see: https://events.ccc.de/congress/2014/Fahrplan/events/6170.html
Our talk will highlight the current debates surrounding net neutrality in Europe, the United States and other parts of the world. We will look at the results of the SaveTheInternet.eu campaign which was lunched a year ago on 30c3. We will discuss various legal protections for net neutrality, look closer at the experience of the Netherlands and we will give an overview of all important open ends of the debate.
Since two years net neutrality is on the agenda of politicians world wide. These are important debates, as net neutrality became one of the central questions about our freedom on the internet. With different faces around the globe we see a trend towards more violations of the neutrality principle which the internet was founded upon. The efforts of telecommunication companies to find new ways to monetize their networks and us users within them are countered in some countries with legislation preventing this new business models.
In 2010, after two years of preparation and a fierce battle, the Dutch
parliament accepted a change to the Telecommunications Act which made net neutrality a principle that was protected by law. In this talk we will take stock after two years of legal protection of net neutrality in The Netherlands. Did it work and do the Dutch now have undiscriminated access to all services on the internet? Has the doomsday scenario of the providers, that subscriptions would become outrageously expensive, become reality? In which cases was the Dutch law enforced?
Are there any loopholes in the Dutch implementation? If others are to
fight for net neutrality, what are the pitfalls to avoid? And, on a more
meta-level, is it enough? Will net neutrality protect your freedom to
access websites and services, or do we need a broader type neutrality?
Net Neutrality Capacity Building SeminarExcel Asama
Promoting Net Neutrality through multi stakeholder capacity building and dialogue is project aimed at contributing to the construction of neutral networks and freedom of expression in Cameroon through training, awareness creation and multi stakeholder discussions.
Project funded by the Web We Want Campaign (webwewant.org)
project website: www.netnogcm.net
C5-1 CASE STUDY 5NET NEUTRALITYFew issues related to.docxRAHUL126667
C5-1
CASE STUDY 5
NET NEUTRALITY
Few issues related to business use of the Internet have spurred as much
heated debate as Net Neutrality. At the heart of the Net Neutrality debate is
the idea that Internet access providers should not discriminate with regard
to what applications an individual can use or interact with over the Internet.
Advocates of Net Neutrality contend that individual freedom to use of the
Internet extends to the content uploads or downloads. They also believe that
individuals acquiring services from Internet access providers should be able
to use the applications and devices of their choice, and be allowed to interact
with the content of their choice anywhere on the Internet.
The concept of Net Neutrality is grounded in traditional “common
carriage” concepts. Because carriers of goods, people, and information can
be considered common carriers, common carriage concepts have been
applied to trains, planes, buses, and telephone companies. Common carriage
principles embody the ideal that the efficient movement of goods and
information is essential to our economy, nation, and culture, and therefore
carriers must not discriminate against or favor particular individuals or
content.
If common carriers are truly public goods, it can be argued that these
modes of conveyance should not discriminate with regard to what they carry
or where they carry it. This also means that the carrier should not be held
liable for carrying things that may be harmful. For example, if a terrorist
C5-2
uses a subway to travel to the site of a terrorist act, the subway cannot be
sued for being complicit in terrorism.
Telecommunication carriers have been classified as common carriers for
more than 100 years, dating back to the early days of the telegraph. Nearly
half a century has passed since the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) determined that the telephone network should be an open platform
over which computer networks can be created. As a result of the
Carterphone case, the FCC resolved that individuals had the right to attach
devices of their choosing to the telephone network [BOSW12]. This opened
the door for data communication devices such as fax machines and modems
to be attached to telephone lines, thereby making it possible to create
computer networks over the telephone network. In essence, court and
regulatory rulings in the U.S. created an environment that fostered the idea
that computer networks could be constructed to go anywhere the telephone
network could take them using devices that could carry just about any type
of content. The decisions made by courts and regulatory agencies that
opened the door for telephone networks to carry data generated by
computers were largely consistent with traditional common carriage
concepts. However, the emergence of the World Wide Web and the
increased popularity of broadband access that it generated added a ...
Network Neutrality - Training Presentation for Indictee Scientists at C-DAC, ...Rajat Kumar
The Centre for the Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) is a research and development organization under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Govt of India.
Net Neutrality formed a critical part of the C-DAC Induction Training Programme to allow the scientists to understand the discourses surrounding this relevant topic
CASE STUDY -1 BA 633 Information Systems Inf.docxhallettfaustina
CASE STUDY -1
BA 633: Information Systems Infrastructure.
Prof: Fred Rose.
NET NEUTRALITY
Anvesh Veldandi
Student no: 558046.
1. This case focuses on the Net Neutrality debate in the United States. Do some Internet research on international
views of Net Neutrality and summarize how views of this issue differ within and across other countries.
Network neutrality has been a contentious issue in the United States for several years, but is increasingly debated
elsewhere, with the EU, several European countries, and the Japanese government all examining the issue.
Net neutrality does not have a single, unanimously accepted definition even within, let alone across, countries.
Nevertheless, proponents of net neutrality generally believe that a structure in which the Internet’s intelligence lies
primarily at the edges of the network, with the edges connected by relatively “dumb pipes” is responsible for the
Internet’s diversity and innovation. They fear that without some regulation broadband providers may discriminate in
favor of their own or sponsored applications, or might degrade traffic to sites that do not pay for better quality of
service tiers.
Net neutrality debates in the U.S. have focused primarily on regulations regarding how broadband providers could
price and manage traffic on their networks. The debate in Europe, has generally focused instead on the role
unbundling mandatory network sharing can play in keeping networks neutral. Unbundling
proponents argue that if the infrastructure provider does not offer retail services or is only one of many retailers
offering service over its infrastructure it will have less incentive to discriminate in favor of or against particular
content. Unbundling opponents typically do not discuss it in the context of net neutrality, but note that it can reduce
incentives to invest in the underlying infrastructure. This paper first examines the net neutrality debate in countries
other than United States. It explores net neutrality in the U.K., France, Denmark, the Netherlands,
Germany, Sweden, South Korea, and Japan. Because net neutrality is another type of mandatory network sharing
and because unbundling is a key component of the EU’s general response to net neutrality, the second part of the
paper uses a new dataset to test empirically the effects of unbundling on investment in fiber-to-the-home.
The net neutrality debate began in other countries much later than it began in the U.S. Most European countries
embrace the general idea of net neutrality. While they address the issue differently, most have so far stated that
unbundling combined with rules governing firms with significant market power, rather than specific n ...
Read the Case Study Below. Answer the questions. Paper must be a pag.docxapatrick3
Read the Case Study Below. Answer the questions. Paper must be a page and a half
Interactive Session: Organizations The Battle Over Net Neutrality What kind of Internet user are you? Do you primarily use the Net to do a little e-mail and online banking? Or are you online all day, watching YouTube videos, downloading music files, or playing online games? Do you use your iPhone to stream TV shows and movies on a regular basis? If you’re a power Internet or smartphone user, you are consuming a great deal of bandwidth. Could hundreds of millions of people like you start to slow the Internet down? Video streaming on Netflix accounts for 32 percent of all bandwidth use in the United States, and Google’s YouTube for 19 percent of Web traffic at peak hours. If user demand overwhelms network capacity, the Internet might not come to a screeching halt, but users could face sluggish download speeds and video transmission. Heavy use of iPhones in urban areas such as New York and San Francisco has already degraded service on the AT&T wireless network. AT&T reported that 3 percent of its subscriber base accounted for 40 percent of its data traffic. Internet service providers (ISPs) assert that network congestion is a serious problem and that expanding their networks would require passing on burdensome costs to consumers. These companies believe differential pricing methods, which include data caps and metered use—charging based on the amount of bandwidth consumed—are the fairest way to finance necessary investments in their network infrastructures. But metering Internet use is not widely accepted, because of an ongoing debate about net neutrality. Net neutrality is the idea that Internet service providers must allow customers equal access to content and applications, regardless of the source or nature of the content. Presently, the Internet is neutral: all Internet traffic is treated equally on a first-come, first-served basis by Internet backbone owners. However, this arrangement prevents telecommunications and cable companies from charging differentiated prices based on the amount of bandwidth consumed by the content being delivered over the Internet. The strange alliance of net neutrality advocates includes MoveOn.org; the Christian Coalition; the American Library Association; data-intensive Web businesses such as Netflix, Amazon, and Google; major consumer groups; and a host of bloggers and small businesses. Net neutrality advocates argue that differentiated pricing would impose heavy costs on heavy bandwidth users such as YouTube, Skype, and other innovative services, preventing high-bandwidth startup companies from gaining traction. Net neutrality supporters also argue that without net neutrality, ISPs that are also cable companies, such as Comcast, might block online streaming video from Netflix or Hulu in order to force customers to use the cable company’s on-demand movie rental services. Network owners believe regulation to enforce net neutralit.
Network neutrality has been at the center of intense political discussions about Internet regulation. Net neutrality is the principle that all content on the Internet should be equally available to users without discrimination by service providers. Establishing legal protections for net neutrality is a necessary component to providing equitable access to online educational materials and services.
THIS IS AN ARTICLE PLEASE GIVE ANSWERS FOR THE QUESTIONS (THE PROBLE.pdfinfo824691
THIS IS AN ARTICLE PLEASE GIVE ANSWERS FOR THE QUESTIONS (THE
PROBLEM)
Closing Case Network Neutrality Wars
The explosive growth of streaming video and mobile technologies is creating bandwidth
problems over the Internet. The Internet was designed to transmit content such as e-mails and
Web pages. However, media items being transmitted across the Internet today, such as high-
definition movies, are vastly larger in size. To compound this problem, there are (in early 2015)
over 180 million smartphone users in the United States, many of whom use the Internet to stream
video content to their phones. The Internet bandwidth issue is as much about economics as it is
about technology. Currently, consumers can send 1-kilobyte e-mails or watch the latest 30-
gigabyte movie on their large-screen televisions for the same monthly broadband fee. Unlike the
system used for power and water bills where higher usage results in higher fees, monthly
broadband fees are not tied to consumer usage. A study from Juniper Networks
(www.juniper.net) highlights this “revenue-per-bit” problem. The report predicts that Internet
revenue for carriers such as AT&T (www.att.com) and Comcast (www.comcast.com) will grow
by 5 percent per year through 2020. At the same time, Internet traffic will increase by 27 percent
annually, meaning that carriers will have to increase their bandwidth investment by 20 percent
per year just to keep up with demand. Under this model, the carrier’s business models will face
pressures, because their total necessary investment will exceed revenue growth. Few industry
analysts expect carriers to stop investing in new capacity. Nevertheless, analysts agree that a
financial crunch is coming. As Internet traffic soars, analysts expect revenue per megabit to
decrease. These figures translate into a far lower return on investment (ROI). Although carriers
can find ways to increase their capacity, it will be difficult for them to reap any revenue benefits
from doing so. The heart of the problem is that, even if the technology is equal to the task of
transmitting huge amounts of data, no one is sure how to pay for these technologies. One
proposed solution is to eliminate network neutrality. (A POSSIBLE SOLUTION)Network
neutrality is an operating model under which Internet service providers (ISPs) must allow
customers equal access to content and applications, regardless of the source or nature of the
content. That is, Internet backbone carriers must treat all Web traffic equally, not charging
different rates by user, content, site, platform, or application. Telecommunications and cable
companies want to replace network neutrality with an arrangement in which they can charge
differentiated prices based on the amount of bandwidth consumed by the content that is being
delivered over the Internet. These companies believe that differentiated pricing is the most
equitable method by which they can finance the necessary investments in their network
infrastructures. .
All the q about net neutrality.1. Who is in favor of net neutralit.pdfakashborakhede
All the q about net neutrality.
1. Who is in favor of net neutrality? What reasons do they offer for this position?
2. What legal challenges are critics making against the FCC\'s rules? What three approaches are
they taking? Which is likely to succeed?
3. What affect could the FCC\'s decision have on the government, consumers, and various
internet-related companies? Are conditions expected to change drastically for any of these
groups?
Solution
1. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all
data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site,
platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. Nearly anyone
and any business not involved with the cable and phone companies supports keeping the Internet
as the open marketplace that it is today. Consumer groups, small businesses, innovators, family
and religious groups, financial services, retailers as well as major Internet brands such as Google,
Yahoo!, Amazon.com, Earthlink, eBay, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage are fighting to keep the
Internet open.
2.The FCC just voted in favor of a strong net neutrality rule to keep the Internet open and free.A
legal fight against the Federal Communications Commission\'s new Internet traffic rules has
begun with a suit by the United States Telecom Association, an industry group that represents
companies including AT&T and Verizon. The FCC is honing in on three areas of oversight: the
blocking of access to any content, the \'throttling\' of Internet traffic (slowing it down for reasons
other than what may be technically necessary to maintain a network\'s operations), and paid
prioritization (in which providers may favor some Internet traffic over others by creating \'fast
lanes\' for websites and services that can pay for them). One of the key legal arguments to expect
in the months to come, according to Werbach, is that the FCC previously said a company can
either be a telecommunications service or an information service, but not both. ISPs may argue
that they are elements of both and that the FCC must prove that they are not information
companies before it can reclassify them, says Werbach.
3.It will be a long time before anything materialises. Netflix won\'t stream any faster for you and
ISPs won\'t stop investing in their networks or high speed fiber cables as a result. Internet service
providers say they back the concept. But they don\'t want to face more, costly regulation and
claim it would hurt the economy.
Their argument is the internet has been progressing just fine the way it is currently set up, thanks
in parts to their expensive investments in network upgrades that have improved the quality of
high-speed service and expanded its availability.
More regulation will cost them more money - money they would otherwise spend on expanding
and improving their networks, they say. That would have the trickle-down effect of hurting
b.
1. Key Points
1. Net Neutrality—the principle of treating
all content on the Internet equally without
discrimination — has been challenged by the
Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
2. A majority of Internet Service Providers being
the telecommunication operators, demand
a share of the revenue generated by online
content in lieu of the web-based companies
using their infrastructure.
3. ISPs charging the content providers could pave
the way for a two-tier Internet comprising a
‘fast-lane’ and a ‘slow-lane’, depending on the
access speed and charge.
4. Chile, Netherlands and Brazil provide legal
protection to net neutrality. The USA has tried to
enforce rules but telecommunication companies
have successfully opposed them. After President
Barack Obama publicly backed net neutrality,
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
is working on a compromise with the ISPs.
5. India has experienced net neutrality violations
by the telecommunication companies but lack
of user knowledge and regulation has pushed
the issue under the carpet. The need of the
hour is to spell out concrete rules for effective
regulation and protection of the Internet.
Net Neutrality –
Saving the Internet
Surya Kiran Sharma is a Research
Assistant at CLAWS and
cyber security and cyber warfare. Views
expressed are personal.
The Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi, is an autonomous think tank dealing with national security and conceptual aspects
of land warfare, including conventional and sub-conventional conflict and terrorism. CLAWS conducts research that is futuristic in outlook and
policy-oriented in approach.
Website: www.claws.in Contact us: landwarfare@gmail.com
“Net neutrality has been built into the fabric
of the Internet since its creation, but it is also a
principle that we cannot take for granted. We
cannot allow Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
to restrict the best access or to pick winners and
losers in the online marketplace for services and
ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to answer
the call of almost 4 million public comments, and
implement the strongest possible rules to protect
net neutrality.”1
— Barack Obama, President,
The United States of America,
November 10, 2014
Using a strong-worded and direct message to
the FCC, President Obama voiced his support
for the most important yet underrated
concept to shape the Internet: net neutrality.
The issue touched upon by President Obama
is gathering steam only now but it has been
present ever since the Internet was born. Few
people realised the commercial potential of
the Internet till companies started making
money from consumers by feeding them
content online. As governments struggle
CENTR
E
FOR LAND WARFARE S
TUDIES
VICTORY THROUGH VISION
CLAWS
January 2015No. 46
CENTRE FOR LAND WARFARE STUDIES
ISSUEBRIEF
2. 2 CLAWS
CENTR
E
FOR LAND WARFARE ST
UDIES
VICTORY THROUGH VISION
CLAWS
to frame rules for preserving net neutrality, the
ISPs, a majority of who are telecommunication
companies, look for a greater say in how data is
shared over the Internet and desire a share of the
revenue generated. The service providers are the
gatekeepers on the highway that is the Internet
and desire their toll tax. Should these service
providers get what they want, the Internet would
be divided into a two-tier network comprising
a ‘fast-lane’ and a ‘slow-lane’, with some data
favoured over others and available at a higher cost
for a fast data speed. This discrimination violates
the concept of net neutrality, which has been the
backbone of the Internet.
Net Neutrality
The term was coined by Columbia University
media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 and
the concept requires all data packets on the
Internet to be treated equally by the ISPs and no
discrimination to be made on the basis of content,
origin, source or destination of the data. ISPs
cannot discriminate between the data that flows
through their networks nor can they impose
restrictions or limitations on access to this data.
Net neutrality preaches the neutral access of the
Internet and to achieve this:
• All websites must be treated equally.
• There should be the same data transfer speed
for all websites at the ISP level and no ISP
should control the traffic that passes through
its server gateways. This requires the ISP to
ensure that any user can access Facebook at
the same data rate as YouTube or any other
website.
• Equal data cost for access to each website.
This neutral and non-discriminatory access has
been the cornerstone on which the Internet was
built and which allowed it to evolve into an
egalitarian platform for ideas and opinions. The
idea of the Open Internet spells out the paradigm
of non-differential availability of all Internet
resources and the means to operate them for
all individuals, companies and organisations.
It includes concepts like net neutrality, open
standards, lack of censorship and low barriers to
entry. The philosophy behind the Open Internet
has helped the Internet grow into a free and open
forum that promotes innovation and competition.
Arguments For
The proponents for net neutrality point out that
the Internet, since its inception, has been based
on the principle of “end-to-end” which intends
to give control over the information flowing
through the network to the entities at the two
ends of the connection transmitting and receiving
the information rather than the network provider.
Web users are able to connect to, and access,
websites or services freely, with the ISP having
no control over the content. This gives freedom
to the users to share and express views on a truly
global network and act as a powerful tool for the
social and economic good.
More importantly, an Open Internet with neutral
access to its resources has resulted in a level playing
field. The creation of companies like Google and
Facebook would not have been possible without
the equitable availability of Internet resources.
Any web user looking to start a website or provide
a service over the Internet need not have much
financial and logistic resources but an idea that
can be disseminated over the Internet to other
users. Allowing open access to the Internet has
helped sustain competition and innovation in the
industry with startups able to compete with the
big corporations for users and revenue, and even
supplant them.
Net neutrality ensures that the Internet remains
open to all individuals and companies around
the world, fostering democratic communication.
Net Neutrality...
3. 3
CENTR
E
FOR LAND WARFARE ST
UDIES
VICTORY THROUGH VISION
CLAWSCLAWS 3
CENTR
E
FOR LAND WARFARE ST
UDIES
VICTORY THROUGH VISION
CLAWSCLAWS
During the period January-March 2011, the hash
tag “Egypt” had 1.4 million mentions on Twitter
as social media played a crucial role in helping the
people organise protests and to spread awareness
about the events in the Middle East.2
Arguments Against
The principal complaint against net neutrality
is that the ISPs, a majority of which are telecom
providers and cable companies, are being
by-passed by the Internet content providers
for the revenue despite using their network
and infrastructure. The investment made by
the telecommunication companies to build
their networks, to acquire spectrums and to
improve infrastructure to synchronise with
the improvements in technology is not being
recouped. Bharti Airtel, which leads the telecom
companies providing Internet service through
wireless phones with a market share of over
27 percent, reported consolidated mobile data
revenues at INR 2,204 crore for the July 2013–
July 2014 period3
while BSNL, the leading service
provider in India, at 60 percent of broadband
subscribers, has earned revenues of INR 28,000
crore in 2013-14.4
Compare this to the INR 6,000
crore (USD 1 billion) that Google is expected to
pocket in revenue from India in the year upto
March 2015.5
The ISPs want a share of the income
generated from online content for building the
highways that the service providers use.
Another issue raised by the opponents of net
neutrality is of differential bandwidth used by
various content providers. Websites like YouTube
that stream video content use much more network
bandwidth than smaller services like messaging
applications. YouTube streams as much data in
three months as the original content on the world’s
radio, cable and broadcast television channels in
one year – 75 petabytes or 10th
to the 15th
power.6
The service providers argue that they deserve part
of the revenue earned by the content provider for
building and upgrading the network infrastructure
for increased bandwidth.
Global View
Chile became the first country to approve a law
promoting net neutrality that seeks to forbid the
service provider from discriminating content over
the Internet. The Netherlands adopted net neutrality
legislation in 2011 to ensure equal treatment of
online content, thereby becoming the first European
country to do so.7
The European Union, taking a cue
from the Netherlands, approved legislation in April
2014 banning creation of a tiered form of Internet
and asking serve providers to treat all content
equally, without discrimination.8
Brazil joined the
club in 2014 by providing a legal framework for
protecting net neutrality through a legislation that
aims at guaranteeing equal access to the Internet
and protects the privacy of its users. The law bars
telecom companies from differential charging
for different content while subjecting content
providers like Google and Facebook to Brazilian
laws and courts in cases involving information
about Brazilians, even if the data is stored on servers
abroad.9
A dynamic coalition of 35 civil society
organisations from 19 countries started a website,
http://www.thisisnetneutrality.org in November
2014 to bring more focus on, and attention to, the
issue of net neutrality.10
While the aforementioned countries provide a
legal backing to net neutrality, there are others
that are opening the gates for the telecom
companies to impose their will. The Federal Anti-
Monopoly Service (FAS) in Russia, equivalent to
the FCC in the USA, has hinted towards allowing
ISPs to charge extra from content providers who
desire prioritised service delivery.11
Despite
the absence of legislation, ISPs follow net
neutrality by treating all traffic equally based
on the bandwidth required. However, content
is blocked in Russia on political grounds, which
clearly violates the concept of an Open Internet.
4. 4 CLAWS
CENTR
E
FOR LAND WARFARE ST
UDIES
VICTORY THROUGH VISION
CLAWS
The FAS is looking at the FCC to show the path
forward on this issue.
The situation in China is even more grim as the
country’s Golden Shield Project, more commonly
known as the Great Firewall of China, has been
active since 2003 for surveillance and censorship
of the Internet. The latest blocking of Gmail,
Google’s mail service, in December 2014 is
another step towards tightening control over the
Internet by the Chinese government. YouTube,
Twitter and Facebook are already blocked in
the country as the Golden Shield allows Beijing
to restrict content that it deems provocative or
inappropriate.12
American Experience
The Communications Act of 1934 spells out the
policy of the United States of America regarding
the Internet as it seeks “to promote the continued
developmentoftheInternet“13
and“topreservethe
vibrant and competitive free market that presently
exists for the Internet and other interactive
computer services, unfettered by Federal or State
regulation.”14
The FCC was created under the
aegis of the Communications Act of 1934 to look
into the regulation of the Internet, amongst other
media of communication.
In 2005, the FCC came out with the four freedoms
of the Internet in the form of guiding principles,
namely15
:
• Freedom to Access Content
• Freedom to Use Applications
• Freedom to Attach Personal Devices
• Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information
The FCC was forced to codify these principles
as rules in 2008 after finding Comcast, the
largest broadcasting and cable company in the
country, slowing down traffic from BitTorrent, a
peer-to-peer file sharing protocol.16
However, a
Federal Appeals Court overturned the decision
by questioning the FCC’s authority to regulate
Comcast’s network management practices.17
Subsequent to the ruling, the FCC came out with
the Open Internet Rules in 2010 as a means to
preserve the openness of the Internet. The rules
put forward by the FCC were:18
• Transparency : Service providers must
disclose the network management practices,
performance characteristics, and terms and
conditions of their broadband services.
• No blocking : Fixed broadband providers
may not block lawful content, applications,
services, or non-harmful devices; mobile
broadband providers may not block lawful
websites, or block applications that compete
with their voice or video telephony services.
• No unreasonable discrimination : Fixed
broadband providers may not unreasonably
discriminate in transmitting lawful network
traffic.
• Reasonable network management :
Reasonable practices to be employed by the
service provider to ensure effective network
management.
Criticisedforbeingopen-ended,theaboverulesleft
the creation of a tiered Internet system comprising
a ‘fast lane’ service possible. Challenged in a
US Court of Appeals by Verizon, the rules were
struck down in 2014 after the mandate of the
FCC to impose the net neutrality rules on service
providers was found missing despite the court
acknowledging the FCC’s authority to regulate
broadband access.19
Taking advantage of the uncertainty over net
neutrality rules, Comcast slowed down its
customers’ connections to Netflix, an on-demand
5. 3
CENTR
E
FOR LAND WARFARE ST
UDIES
VICTORY THROUGH VISION
CLAWSCLAWS 5
CENTR
E
FOR LAND WARFARE ST
UDIES
VICTORY THROUGH VISION
CLAWSCLAWS
Internet streaming media, forcing the company to
pay Comcast to connect directly to the broadband
network resulting in a pipeline system of access.20
The FCC has decided to open the debate over net
neutrality with Chairman Tom Wheeler planning
to propose new rules that give the ISPs the freedom
to create ‘fast lanes’ by entering into negotiations
with certain content providers while maintaining
a ‘baseline level of service’ to the subscribers.21
However, the new proposals have come under
severe criticism, with US President Barack Obama
voicing his support for heavy regulation to ensure
a free and open Internet. Obama said, “We cannot
allow Internet service providers to restrict the best
access or to pick winners and losers in the online
marketplace for services and ideas.”22
As the debate
continues, the FCC is likely to announce new net
neutrality rules in early 201523
amid concerns of
overarching effects of American regulations on the
Internet in countries around the world.24
Indian Context
The debate over net neutrality rules in India
started in 2006 when the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India (TRAI) sent out a consultation
paper to various telecom companies and other
stakeholders seeking recommendations on
Internet services.25
No formal rules have been
notified by TRAI about the regulation of Internet
content and net neutrality, while the absence of
a legal framework leaves the implementation of
the principle open to the whims of the service
provider. The first demand for revenue sharing
between telecom companies and content
providers came from Bharti Airtel Chairman Sunil
Mittal, who talked about imposing an Internet tax
analogous to the tax on the highways. Speaking at
the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain,
in February 2012, Mittal said, “If we have to
build the highways, there has got to be a tax on
highways. You cannot have automobiles running
on these highways which are paying nothing. We
need to open up a debate for the right model.”26
Over the years, Indian service providers have
flouted net neutrality rules but the absence
of efficient regulations and lack of consumer
knowledge has helped them push the issue under
the carpet.
• In 2010, MTS MBlaze allowed its users in
Jharkhand free Internet browsing of certain
websites. Similarly, Tata Docomo offered free
access to websites like Facebook and Twitter.27
• Bharti Airtel and BSNL throttled or
intentionally slowed the traffic on BitTorrent
to keep the traffic flowing on their own
networks. In the first quarter of 2012, Airtel
blocked up to 33 percent of BitTorrent traffic.28
• Aircel in 2013 partnered with Wikimedia
Foundation to offer free access to Wikipedia
to its subscribers. The move was accompanied
by Reliance Communications giving
unlimited live streaming to its users of the ICC
Champions Trophy on the Star Sports mobile
website. The same year saw Airtel partner
with Google to provide free access to Google
services.29
• In the most recent case of net neutrality
violation, Airtel in December 2014 excluded
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) from
its data packs and started charging for all
incoming and outgoing VoIP calls through
applications like Skype and Viber.30
However,
the telecom operator decided to rollback its
plans just days later.31
This latest move by Airtel is in clear violation
of a TRAI proposal to not subject Over-The-Top
(OTT) companies like WhatsApp and Skype to
regulation. Indian telecom operators approached
TRAI earlier in 2014, looking to bring Internet-
based messaging and voice applications like
WhatsApp and Skype under some jurisdiction32
but the regulator has instead circulated a
consultation paper seeking recommendations on
6. 6 CLAWS
CENTR
E
FOR LAND WARFARE ST
UDIES
VICTORY THROUGH VISION
CLAWS
regulating similar content providers while looking
into the falling revenues of telecom companies. It
is estimated that Indian telecom operators stand
to lose more than USD 3 billion in SMS revenues
due to the emergence of messaging and texting
applications.33
TRAI is also examining Airtel’s
deal with Facebook and WhatsApp after the
operator gave access to these companies at fixed
but nominal amounts as the regulator determines
whether this amounts to equal access to other
content providers on the network.34
To make matters complex, the Department
of Telecommunications (DoT) has sought
further clarification on delinking the licences
of networks from delivery of services by way
of Virtual Network Operators (VNOs). A VNO
is a service provider who does not own the
underlying network(s) but relies on the network
and support of the infrastructure providers and
telecommunications operators for providing
telecom services to end users/customers. The
notable point to come out of the pre-consultation
paper is whether the OTT operators would need
to apply for licences for providing the services
upon implementation of the proposed delinking
model.35
This attains greater significance when
taking into consideration the inability of smaller
OTT companies to compete with their more
financially endowed counterparts while keeping
in view equal opportunity to all as enshrined
in the net neutrality principle. Facebook was
inducted in the Cellular Operators Association of
India (COAI) as an associate member in August
2014; now the American major looks to strengthen
its hold in the Indian market.36
Future Course of Action
As service providers continue to lobby with
governments for granting them greater share
in the revenue earned by the content providers,
it remains crucial that all future decisions be
made without compromising the free and open
nature of the Internet. Net neutrality continues
to divide opinion around the world but it is
the one single most important concept that has
helped the Internet evolve into the medium it is
today. India needs a comprehensive and lucid
regulatory and legal framework to protect net
neutrality as the telecom operators prey on the
users’ lack of knowledge on the subject. India can
only look towards Chile, Netherlands and Brazil
for inspiration.
Notes
1. “ObamaBacksNetNeutralityPlan”,AlJazeera,November10,2014,http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/11/
obama-backs-net-neutrality-plan-2014111102829392764.html. Accessed on December 31, 2014.
2. “Facebook and Twitter Key to Arab Spring Uprisings: Report”, The National, June 6, 2011, http://www.thenational.ae/
news/uae-news/facebook-and-twitter-key-to-arab-spring-uprisings-report. Accessed on December 27, 2014.
3. “Airtel : 39.32 Million Mobile Internet Subscribers, Mobile Data Revenue Grows By 73.9%, NextBigWhat, July 30, 2014,
http://www.nextbigwhat.com/airtel-mobile-internet-data-297/. Accessed on December 28, 2014.
4. “BSNL Revenue Stands at `28,000 Crore”, The Pioneer, November 20, 2014, http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/
dehradun/bsnl-revenue-stands-at-28000-crore.html. Accessed on December 28, 2014.
5. “Google on its Way to Surpass $1 Billion in Revenue from India in FY15”, The Economic Times, October 9, 2014, http://
economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/google-on-its-way-to-surpass-1-billion-in-revenue-from-india-in-fy15/
articleshow/44731171.cms. Accessed on December 28, 2014.
6. “The Coming Exaflood”, Discovery Institute, January 20, 2007, http://www.discovery.org/a/3869. Accessed on December
28, 2014.
7. 3
CENTR
E
FOR LAND WARFARE ST
UDIES
VICTORY THROUGH VISION
CLAWSCLAWS 7
CENTR
E
FOR LAND WARFARE ST
UDIES
VICTORY THROUGH VISION
CLAWSCLAWS
7. “Netherlands Makes Net Neutrality a Law”, BBC, June 23, 2011, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-13886440.
Accessed on December 28, 2014.
8. “EU Votes to Protect Google and Netflix From Telecoms Charges”, The Telegraph, April 3, 2014, http://www.telegraph.
co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/telecoms/10742251/EU-votes-to-protect-Google-and-
Netflix-from-telecoms-charges.html. Accessed on December 29, 2014.
9. “Net Neutrality Wins in Brazil’s Internet Constitution”, Al Jazeera America, March 26, 2014, http://america.aljazeera.
com/articles/2014/3/26/brazil-internet-constitution.html. Accessed on December 29, 2014.
10. “Global Coalition Launches International Net Neutrality Website”, ThisIsNetNeutrality.Org, November 25, 2014, https://
s3.amazonaws.com/access.3cdn.net/6fe13024e81dc2d55c_3gm6iir98.pdf. Accessed on December 31, 2014.
11. “Building an Internet Fast Lane in Russia Could Be a Great Way to Stifle Independent Media”, Global Voices Online,
October 17, 2014, http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/10/17/building-an-internet-fast-lane-in-russia-could-be-a-great-
way-to-stifle-independent-media/. Accessed on December 31, 2014.
12. “The Great Firewall of China is Nearly Complete”, CNN Money, December 30, 2014, http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/30/
technology/china-internet-firewall-google/. Accessed on December 31, 2014.
13. “47 U.S. Code § 230 (b)(1)”, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230. Accessed on December 28, 2014.
14. “47 U.S. Code § 230 (b)(2)”, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230. Accessed on December 28, 2014.
15. “The Four ‘Net Freedoms in Chairman Powell’s Own Words”, ISEN.blog, August 18, 2005, http://isen.com/blog/2005/08/
four-net-freedoms-in-chairman-powells.html. Accessed Google cached copy on December 28, 2014.
16. “FCC Rules Against Comcast for BitTorrent Blocking”, Elevtronic Frontier Foundation, August 3, 2008, https://www.eff.org/
deeplinks/2008/08/fcc-rules-against-comcast-bit-torrent-blocking. Accessed on December 28, 2014.
17. “U.S. Court Curbs F.C.C. Authority on Web Traffic”, The New York Times, April 6, 2010, http://www.nytimes.
com/2010/04/07/technology/07net.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Accessed on December 28, 2014.
18. “Open Internet Rules, FCC”, December 21, 2010, https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.
pdf, Accessed on December 28, 2010.
19. “U.S. Appeals Court Strikes Down FCC Net Neutrality Rules”, Reuters, January 14, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/
article/2014/01/14/us-usa-court-netneutrality-idUSBREA0D11420140114. Accessed on December 28, 2014.
20. “Slow Comcast Speeds were Costing Netflix Customers”, CNN Money, August 29, 2014, http://money.cnn.
com/2014/08/29/technology/netflix-comcast/. Accessed on December 28, 2014.
21. “Regulators Pave way for Internet “Fast Lane” with Net Neutrality Rules”, CNN Money, April 23, 2014, http://money.
cnn.com/2014/04/23/technology/open-internet/index.html?iid=EL. Accessed on December 28, 2014.
22. “Obama Puts Foot Down: No Internet Fast Lanes”, CNN Money, November 10, 2014, http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/10/
technology/obama-internet-regulation/. Accessed on December 28, 2014.
23. “Net Neutrality Decision to Be Made in Early 2015”, Tech Times, December 28, 2014, http://www.techtimes.com/
articles/23210/20141228/net-neutrality-decision-made-early-2015.htm. Accessed on December 28, 2014.
24. “US Net Neutrality Campaign Enables Foreign Governments’ Internet Control”, The Hill, December 22, 2014, http://
thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/227827-us-net-neutrality-campaign-enables-foreign-governments-internet.
Accessed on December 28, 2014.
25. Consultation Paper on “Review of Internet Service”, TRAI, December 27, 2006, http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/
ConsultationPaper/Document/consultation27dec06.pdf, Accessed Google cached copy on December 29, 2014 at http://
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:bnL3S5nxunwJ:www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/
Document/consultation27dec06.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in
26. “Mobile Operators: Stop Picking on us, or Else,” CNET, 28 February 2012, http://www.cnet.com/news/mobile-operators-
stop-picking-on-us-or-else/. Accessed on December 24, 2014.
8. 8 CLAWS
CENTR
E
FOR LAND WARFARE ST
UDIES
VICTORY THROUGH VISION
CLAWS
27. “MTS MBlaze, Tata Docomo and the Neutrality of Wireless Internet Access in India”, Medianama, April 7, 2010, http://
www.medianama.com/2010/04/223-mts-mblaze-net-neutrality-mobile-internet/. Accessed on December 29, 2014.
28. “ISPs Slam Brakes on Bit Torrent Speeds”, The Hindu, August 10, 2012, http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/
internet/isps-slam-brakes-on-bittorrent-speeds/article3751310.ece. Accessed on December 29, 2014.
29. “Wikipedia Partners Aircel To Offer Free Access”, Medianama, July 26, 2013, http://www.medianama.com/2013/07/223-
wikipedia-partners-aircel-to-offer-free-access/. Accessed on December 29, 2014.
30. “Exclusive: Airtel Starts Charging for VoIP Data on 2G and 3G, Calls on Viber and Skype not to be Covered by Data
Packs, Telecom Talk, December 26, 2014, http://telecomtalk.info/airtel-starts-charging-for-voip-data-viber-skype-
charges/128118/. Accessed on December 29, 2014.
31. “Airtel Drops Plans to Charge Extra for Internet Voice Calls”, The Hindu, December 30, 2014, http://www.thehindu.com/
business/Industry/airtel-will-not-charge-extra-for-internet-voice-calls-via-skype-viber/article6735030.ece. Accessed on
December 30, 2014.
32. “Instant Messaging App Firms Should be Regulated: Airtel CEO”, The Hindu, February 27, 2014, http://www.thehindu.
com/business/Industry/instant-messaging-app-firms-should-be-regulated-airtel-ceo/article5732465.ece. Accessed on
December 29, 2014.
33. “Trai Resists as Telcos Seek Regulation of WhatsApp, Skype”, Financial Express, August 18, 2014, http://archive.
financialexpress.com/news/trai-resists-as-telcos-seek-regulation-of-whatsapp-skype/1280243. Accessed on December
29, 2014.
34. “Trai Examining Bharti Airtel’s Special Deals on Facebook and WhatsApp”, The Economic Times, November 25, 2014,
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-11-25/news/56455517_1_net-neutrality-mobile-data-services-
uninor. Accessed on December 29, 2014.
35. “Pre-Consultation Paper on ‘Delinking of License for Networks from Delivery of Service by way of Virtual Network
Operators” (Pt. 28), TRAI, September 3, 2014. Accessed Google cached copy on December 29, 2014 at http://webcache.
googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9BvOqyA4mmoJ:www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/
Document/final-Pre%2520consultation%2520paper%2520on%2520Delinking%2520of%2520licence%252003.09.2014.
pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in
36. “Facebook Joins COAI as an Associate Member” , The Hindu, August 6, 2014, http://www.thehindu.com/business/
Industry/facebook-joins-coai-as-an-associate-member/article6287463.ece. Accessed on December 29, 2014.
CENTRE FOR LAND WARFARE STUDIES (CLAWS)
RPSO Complex, Parade Road, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi 110010
Tel.: +91-11-25691308, Fax: +91-11-25692347, Email: landwarfare@gmail.com
Website: www.claws.in
The contents of this Issue Brief are based on the analysis of material accessed from open sources and are the personal views of the author. It may not be
quoted as representing the views or policy of the Government of India or Integrated Headquarters of MoD (Army).
CENTR
E
FOR LAND WARFARE ST
UDIES
VICTORY THROUGH VISION
CLAWS
...Saving the Internet