CHENNAI: Net neutrality is a term coined by Columbia University professor Tim Wu in 2002. It is the principle that all internet service providers (ISPs) -- like Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), Airtel and Reliance Jio in India -- should treat all internet traffic equally and not discriminate in favour of one content provider over another. For the consumer, it means that he has access to all content providers equally.
Internet service providers in several countries have been advocating an end to net neutrality. Much like a cable TV service provider, they would like to charge a premium for popular content or slow down content that has fewer takers. The absence of net neutrality would enable ISPs to slow down access to certain websites and create a fast lane for content favoured by them.
Pulling down net neutrality regulations would have implications for e-commerce, entertainment and even political free expression. A small content provider would be assigned lesser bandwidth because he would not pay as much as a preferred source.
Why net neutrality?
Neutrality has been a core principle of the internet since it was created. Had there been no neutrality when Mark Zuckerberg dreamed up a campus dating site in his dorm room, there might not be a Facebook today. For the Harvard undergrad would have had to pay internet service providers to make sure that his site reached millions of netizens like established sites did. It was the principle of equality that gave Facebook in its formative years the same bandwidth as existing social media platforms like My Space or Orkut.
Advocates of the principle say that net neutrality is the enabling factor behind much of the innovation on the internet. If there were price barriers to new websites and internet applications, we wouldn't have the dazzling array of possibilities that exist today.
Supporters of neutrality are particularly worried that carriers like Verizon and Comcast in the US and Reliance Jio and Airtel in India would be loath to offering a level playing field to small content providers but for mandatory regulations. They would rather push their own products and protect their bottomline. For example, cable TV companies could slow down services to rival video streaming sites like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hulu and telephone companies like BSNL could interfere with call-making applications like WhatsApp or Skype.
Why no to net neutrality?
Those against net neutrality say the current regulations discourage carrier investment in developing networks. For example, video-calling sites like Skype, Viber and WhatsApp or online games are particularly sensitive to delays in delivering data. Communication carriers say that internet users might find it beneficial if these companies pay a premium so that their data-sensitive applications are given priority.
Sceptics also argue that there is no clear way of establishing a binding set of rules in favour of protecting net neutrality since the internet is complex and changes constantly. They fear that regulations could become obsolete as soon as they are established.
What's the scene in India?
The debate on network neutrality in India gathered public attention after Airtel announced in December 2014 a plan called Airtel Zero. Under this plan, the carrier would provide subscribers free access to applications such as WhatsApp and Flipkart. The cost of browsing would have to be paid by the companies themselves.
This was against the net neutrality principles because it implied that established companies could pay for preferred content status and thus put start-ups at a disadvantage.
Airtel's move faced criticism on social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and Reddit and it withdrew the plan a week later.
In response to the debate, TRAI, in March 2015, released a formal consultation paper on regulating over-the-top (OTT) services, seeking comments from the public. Over 1 million responses were received condemning the paper for being one-sided and having confusing statements.
Meanwhile, in September 2015, Facebook in partnership with Reliance Communications launched an app called Free Basics with the ostensible aim of providing affordable internet access in India. However, free access was limited to a few partner websites and applications. Advocates of net neutrality were quick to point out that the plan does not offer equal and unbiased access to all services. And thus erupted a huge debate.
The telecom regulator in December issued another consultation paper on differential pricing for data services. In the consultation paper it asked if telecom operators should be allowed to have different pricing for accessing different websites, applications and platforms.
Finally, based on the responses of millions, TRAI on February 8, 2016, barred telecom service providers from charging differential rates for data services, thus prohibiting Facebook's Free Basics and Airtel's Zero.
What are some of the net-neutral countries?
USA
In the US, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality until 2015 and corporations on both sides of the debate lobbied lawmakers in Congress. Between 2005 and 2012, five attempts to pass bills containing net neutrality provisions failed. In April 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took up a draft rule that would permit ISPs to offer content providers a faster track to send content. In April 2017, FCC chairman Ajit Pai proposed an end to net neutrality, and announced a vote on Dec. 14 to settle the matter.
India
In February 2016, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) issued rules preserving net neutrality while it conducted year-long consultations on the matter. On Tuesday it reaffirmed its earlier ruling on net neutrality. The regulator explicitly stated that all content on the internet should be available to consumers without any restrictions.
Chile
Chile was the first country to adopt net neutrality. Provisions advocating net neutrality were integrated in the country's General Telecommunications Law in 2010.
Netherlands
In 2012, the Netherlands became the first European country to pass a net neutrality law. It banned telecom operators from charging extra for select services or blocking select services.
Brazil
Brazil joined the net neutrality bandwagon in 2014 by barring operators from charging differently for services and providing different bandwidths to select services.
Mexico
Mexico provides for net neutrality under both law and policy. Article 6 of its Constitution recognizes the fundamental right of access to technologies of information and communication, “including broadband and internet.”
..and the not-so-neutral countries?
Nigeria
The African country's service providers ran into huge losses as most Nigerians placed tend to their calls over the internet through applications like Skype. The government then banned over-the-top (OTT) services like voice-over-internet-protocol and video streaming.
European Union
The European Parliament in September 2015 voted against adopting net neutrality for the entire European Union. Only Slovenia and the Netherlands have net neutrality laws.
China
Though China claims to have net neutrality laws, its government-controlled internet service providers have a firm grip on content on the internet.
Russia
Russia maintains tight control over internet traffic. Its main telecommunications agency, Roskomnadzor, keeps a list of sites that ISPs must block. According to thisisnetneutrality.org, "Russia does not have official net-neutral laws and ISPs have generally discriminated against apolitical content."
Pakistan
Pakistan does not official regulations in place but a new cyber crime bill that would impact net neutrality has been approved by a legislative committee of Parliament. The country's five major service providers all offer zero rating plans, that is, the practice of ISPs not charging for data used to access specific applications. Which is a disguise for the fact that they charge a premium on preferred content.
Where net giants stand
Who's for?
Most internet giants are for net neutrality although their intensity of support has wavered from country to country and from time to time. Classically, Facebook has been a champion of a net-neutral internet in the US, but in India it collaborated with Reliance to bring in the Free Basics service which was anything but neutral.
Amazon
The e-commerce giant has been an active supporter of net neutrality, although the retail heavyweight would stand to gain from differential pricing for different content. Back in July, Amazon took part in the Day of Action protest by internet companies against a move in the US to water down net neutrality. Its supports to net neutrality makes business sense for Amazon, however. Its video streaming service trails Netflix in the US and the end of net neutrality would put it at a disadvantage.
Apple
Apple is not active in the net neutrality debate. It was not among the 100 companies that lobbied for neutrality in 2014, it's not a member of the Internet Association, and did not participate in the Day of Action protests back in July. Its CEO Tim Cook did come out in favour of net neutrality during a shareholders meeting this year, however, saying all content should be treated equally.
Facebook
It's complicated. In the US it has participated in the net neutrality protests and lobbied for it in the Internet Association. But then, its Free Basics service, which offers free access to select websites but not the entire internet, is still available through carrier partnerships in several countries - although it’s banned in India. It’s fervour for net neutrality has increased lately because it has expanded into streaming video, where speed matters.
Google
Google has participated in efforts to keep the net neutral. And as YouTube has expanded into live streaming television and now competes with TV companies, it makes business sense for it to stand by net neutrality. So although scaling down neutrality would give Google an opportunity to throttle its competition, it has decided to stay invested in the future, just like Amazon.
Microsoft
Microsoft is a member of the Internet Association and therefore a party to the net neutrality lobby. The software giant would not be directly affected by the loss of net neutrality, but its investment in the cloud business would make it prudent to go along advocates of equality.
And who's against?
Both in India and in the US, it's mainly the internet service providers who see net neutrality as a hindrance. The arrival of video streaming services -- and the huge profits they are making -- has led to ISPs lobbying for an end to net neutrality so that they can introduce fast-laning.
Four internet service providers in the US — Comcast, Charter, AT&T and Verizon -- which stand to gain most if net neutrality regulations are pulled down have been lobbying US Congressmen to pass laws that remove the neutrality barrier.
Comcast
Back in 2014, Comcast in a corporate blog post stated it was not considering any "fast lane deals with content owners." But fast forward to 2017: The carrier's stance on fast laning became slightly opaque when company's CEO Dave Watson said in a blog post, "Comcast does not and will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer fast-laning services if the FCC votes to remove net neutrality barriers next month.
Yahoo-Verizon
While more than 100 internet companies teamed up to oppose any move to end net neutrality, that list did not include Yahoo. There's a reason for that. Yahoo is owned by Verizon, which is the most vocal company against the FCC's present rules on net neutrality though it claims to be a supporter of net neutrality. Also, AOL, the US biggest internet service provider, is poised to merge with Yahoo and therefore a major opponent of neutrality. Tumblr, the blogging platform also owned by Yahoo, is another company whose ardour for neutrality has dimmed.
AT&T
In July, when Battle for the Net organised the 'Day of Action' protests, it found a surprising supporter in AT&T who joined it stressing that it believes in "preserving and advancing an open internet". The blog also directed people to an "Open Internet" page on its site. Things get interesting and a bit murky from here. In that site, the carrier has a series of pre-written messages that one can fill in with details and send to legislators masquerading as a call for pro net neutrality. However, a closer look at the messages paints a different picture.
One of the messages read: “There is a right way and a wrong way to preserve the concept of an open internet. I am in favor (sic) of protecting the open internet with legislation.” Another read: “I agree with the FCC that it doesn’t make sense to apply an 80 year-old regulatory scheme to the internet.” As we can clearly see, there's a lot of ambiguity in the statements and it can be very well interpreted in a not-so neutral light.