# Big win for net neutrality: Telecom regulator prohibits discriminatory tariffs for data



## bibinjohn (Feb 8, 2016)

NEW DELHI: Telecom regulator Trai on Monday prohibited discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content. The move is a big blow to Facebook's highly-controversial 'Free Basics' platform and Airtel's zero-rated platform 'Airtel Zero'.

In an order, 'Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulation', Trai said, "no service provider shall offer or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content."


The regulator further said that "no service provider shall enter into any arrangement, agreement or contract, by whatever name called, with any person... that has the effect of discriminatory tariffs for data services being offered or charged to the consumer on the basis of content."


An exemption has been made for emergency services, or at times of public emergency.

SOURCE: Big win for net neutrality: Telecom regulator prohibits discriminatory tariffs for data - Times of Indi


----------



## kg11sgbg (Feb 8, 2016)

At last a very good move by TRAI!!
We the netizens must be particularly happy.

Congrats + Salutations , TRAI. 

LONG LIVE NET-NEUTRALITY...........................................


----------



## Anorion (Feb 8, 2016)

hmm... what if the service provider is also the content provider
because airtel is still blatantly having discriminatory tariffs for wynk


----------



## Nerevarine (Feb 8, 2016)

Now if only they raise minimum speed cap to 2 mbps, that would be something


----------



## Desmond (Feb 8, 2016)

After having a terrible day. I finally feed good reading this.

Now I wonder what will be the fate of Free Basics.


----------



## kg11sgbg (Feb 8, 2016)

Nerevarine said:


> Now if only they raise minimum speed cap to 2 mbps, that would be something


Probability of raising min. speed cap to 2Mbps is seeming to become a reality.

The  Question is *WHEN???????????????????*


----------



## kkn13 (Feb 8, 2016)

Anorion said:


> hmm... what if the service provider is also the content provider
> because airtel is still blatantly having discriminatory tariffs for wynk



So do idea ,vodafone etc when it comes to using their apps such as Money or account checking apps


----------



## anirbandd (Feb 8, 2016)

this is great news. 



i am glad TRAI took the right decision.

- - - Updated - - -



Anorion said:


> hmm... what if the service provider is also the content provider
> because airtel is still blatantly having discriminatory tariffs for wynk



Trai and Net Neutrality: A principle-driven fight was won today but battle for connectivity continues - Firstpos



> While one packet cannot be prioritised over the other, a neutral network could still provide free content on say its own network. For instance, an operator could choose to offer a free section on its music portal if it wishes to. However, under no circumstances could it prioritise its own music service over another services such as Spotify, Hungama or Saavn to name a few.



although this is the author's interpretation, i am inclined to believe that this is what TRAI would pursue.

- - - Updated - - -

a great read and some crucial points [loopholes]

Anything on internet cannot be differentially priced: Trai Chairman RS Sharma - The Economic Time

- - - Updated - - -

and from this same interview: 



> *If Airtel offers Wynk free for its customers?
> *
> If there's a product on the internet, it cannot violate these rules, because we cannot have discriminatory pricing.
> 
> ...



Yay!!!


----------



## Raaabo (Feb 8, 2016)

Despite the fact that I believe the net to not be neutral anyway. I think this at least brings clarity. However, it means that you've taken away any long term profit hopes for providers, which in the end results in them not caring about anything but making more money off existing subscribers. 

I think this will actually make the price of bandwidth stagnate for a bit, instead of it becoming cheaper. I hope I'm wrong. 

As usual, popularity won, and the voice of the connected was used to decide the fate of those who aren't connected. The haves decided on what the have-nots deserve or don't deserve. 

I just hope that in a decade or two, we don't find ourselves lagging behind countries worse than us now, only because they allowed a corporate to make a profit as a means of connecting and educating a lot of their poorer population. Then we will have net-neutrality, but not net-parity with the rest of the world.


----------



## Desmond (Feb 8, 2016)

FB lost because they were using malicious practices to justify their ends. They were trying to turn a serious discussion into arm-chair activism, even going far as tricking users into supporting their claim. However, in the end, TRAI saw through their bullshit. FB could not come up with the 11 million people who they claimed supported Free Basics. TRAI could not reach the supporters for clarification either since many of those mails were sent by FB via no-reply email addresses.

FB used 9gag level of malice and paid the price.


----------



## Raaabo (Feb 8, 2016)

Of course they were using malicious practices, they're a corporation. They only care about their stock holders. What do you expect?  

Since the new wealth is people, corporations want as many to be using their services. This is a good thing as far as getting people connected is. 

At least the poor had some value as a commodity. Now they're worthless again because they're not the commodity anymore. 

We're back to the good old net. The one where ISPs can dictate and charge access charges that they feel is fine (so long as it's universal). 

Of course you can all watch your porn and torrent in peace, so you're happy, but a lot of rural India is again forgotten. 

Now all those who showed concern for those "poor people" who were being threatened by Facebook's walled gardens will conveniently forget about the poor sods. 

As long as they didn't get a net that threatened our freedom... Then it's good. No one actually gives a **** about them though. Right?


----------



## techie_85 (Feb 9, 2016)

How do we even know Free Basics was aimed at the poor, is it just because Zuckerberg said so?

The bitter truth is that the poor rural Indian was probably just a smoke screen used by Facebook and the real target of this service would always be the middle class of this country. Afterall it's easier to monetize a urban middle class user than it is to monetize a poor rural user.

I'm happy TRAI was able to see past the melodramatic argument like "Will somebody think of the rural poor!" and gave a very clear verdict.


----------



## Raaabo (Feb 9, 2016)

I'm middle class, I assume you're middle class. Would you be happy with a watered down experience without JavaScript and just access to Wikipedia and some crap sites? 

Which middle class Indian would be OK with that?


----------



## anirbandd (Feb 9, 2016)

quite the devil's advocate that you are playing  [MENTION=1]Raaabo[/MENTION]  good points. 

i am quite sure that "free basics" wouldn't be the end of FB's road into the internet roadways in india. 

as you said, FB as a corporation is as malicious as can be possible [as is illustrated by their underhand practice to get mails sent from unsuspecting users] and if they had not been restrained by TRAI, it would have ended up much more worse in the long run. 

btw, if FB does want to play the poor man's saviour by providing him internet, why not start a ISP with low costs albeit with limited speed, targeted at rural India?? provide all the rural schools with internet?? 
Or, say start their own cellular network company for providing 2/3G internet at low cost???

that would mean major capital and initial investment, but nothing that FB cannot afford.


----------



## Raaabo (Feb 9, 2016)

I think it's very important to play devil's advocate. 

I have no doubt that the play for Facebook was profit driven. You'd have to be an idiot to take Zuck's words at face value. 

However, I think somewhere along the way he's realised that the same 1 billion are being hammered over the head with ads and have a million companies struggling to extract a cent from each of them. I think that's when he decided, screw this, I'm going to get a whole new billion to nurture and make ripe for the picking. 

Now of course there's a profit motive. But is is so bad if those new billion get online, even if it's as cash cows?


----------



## anirbandd (Feb 9, 2016)

Raaabo said:


> I think it's very important to play devil's advocate.
> 
> I have no doubt that the play for Facebook was profit driven. You'd have to be an idiot to take Zuck's words at face value.
> 
> ...



umm sorry.. i just edited my comment.. 

- - - Updated - - -

but my comment is now even more inline with your views. 

as you said, FB as a corporation is as malicious as can be possible [as is illustrated by their underhand practice to get mails sent from unsuspecting users] and if they had not been restrained by TRAI, it would have ended up much more worse in the long run. 

btw, if FB does want to play the poor man's saviour by providing him internet, why not start a ISP with low costs albeit with limited speed, targeted at rural India?? provide all the rural schools with internet?? 
Or, say start their own cellular network company for providing 2/3G internet at low cost???

that would mean major capital and initial investment, but nothing that FB cannot afford.

- - - Updated - - -

btw, refresh my memory.. what were the sites that were initially offered in the free basics package??


----------



## Anorion (Feb 9, 2016)

nah don't want any more illiterate people on the internets

facebook could have offered free basics platform in India while following the principles of net neutrality, it's a lost opportunity for fb.


----------



## sam_738844 (Feb 9, 2016)

Raaabo said:


> Despite the fact that I believe the net to not be neutral anyway. I think this at least brings clarity. However, it means that you've taken away any long term profit hopes for providers, which in the end results in them not caring about anything but making more money off existing subscribers.
> 
> I think this will actually make the price of bandwidth stagnate for a bit, instead of it becoming cheaper. I hope I'm wrong.
> 
> ...



I read your article. About  how the internet was never neutral and the illusion of the said neutrality has been a veil of prerogatives and its justifications. I believe its true, I believe its also true the Internet is albeit fair about how it contained the information about it being subjectively neutral/non-neutral and allowed itself open to all perceptions. I think what TRAI did is only good where Telecommunication companies in a country seek and look forward to have exploitable ends to use the privilege of platforms like free-basics. The notion that started the war was not unfair, its just that our soil is not ready for it. I would have been happy to see a person rushing in a hospital make use of a high-bandwidth search for a legit blood-bank while some shady individual hitting on p0rn is is enjoying a better experience. But I would also hate to see that I had to subscribe for some special "unlimited TV" package to enjoy netflix and otherwise would have to stream with a victimized and sluggish Internet.


----------



## Raaabo (Feb 9, 2016)

Anorion said:


> nah don't want any more illiterate people on the internets
> 
> facebook could have offered free basics platform in India while following the principles of net neutrality, it's a lost opportunity for fb.


Dude, that's kind of elitist don't you think 

Of course they could have done free basics in line with net neutrality, which I think is a limiting and stupid definition for the internet anyway. But then how would that make them any money? This was always about them making money after all, and I was just trying to find out what really is wrong with them and others getting richer, so long as we get a more educated society as a result.


----------



## techie_85 (Feb 9, 2016)

Raaabo said:


> I'm middle class, I assume you're middle class. Would you be happy with a watered down experience without JavaScript and just access to Wikipedia and some crap sites?
> 
> Which middle class Indian would be OK with that?



The ones that mostly use internet for FB and checking mails. More importantly those who have smartphones but don't have internet yet. Since they don't know what the internet is to begin with, they'll never know what they're missing. It's target audience are those with little to no internet experience, and if Facebook had it's way, those people would have continued to stay that way.


----------



## Anorion (Feb 9, 2016)

I was neutral about it and saying these illiterate people are making noise because they want everything for free when they are only getting some things for free
what converted me was this line


> Supports Net Neutrality in the US, violates it in India


A change of name to Free Basics doesn’t make Facebook’s Zero Rating service neutral - MediaNam


----------



## chimera201 (Feb 10, 2016)

What bothers me is that they spent Rs. 300 crore on advertising Free Basics. If they only spent it on actually upgrading internet infrastructure!


----------



## ariftwister (Feb 10, 2016)

chimera201 said:


> What bothers me is that they spent Rs. 300 crore on advertising Free Basics. If they only spent it on actually upgrading internet infrastructure!



They just want the big data.. Imagine if they got hands on the data of all those peoples in india.


----------



## kg11sgbg (Feb 10, 2016)

chimera201 said:


> What bothers me is that they spent Rs. 300 crore on advertising Free Basics. If they only spent it on actually upgrading internet infrastructure!


Friend,discussed that beforehand,*forum.digit.in/random-news/195815-saynotofreebasics-what-facebook-wont-tell-you-about-freebasics.html


> kg11sgbg said:
> 
> 
> > If they were so much concerned about our rural India,they would have gone the Bill Gates way of philanthropy. Merely wasting Rs.300 crore on ads and other aspects,shows what their true intention is.Leave aside FreeBasics,why didn't they pour this money for improving the infrastructure of Signal strength and wifi instruments on the rural country side of India in a phase by phase manner,so as to help the common public in acquiring the network resources???
> ...



Completely tuned with our thoughts.


----------



## Anorion (Feb 10, 2016)

the marketing was necessary considering the amount of noise. There will be unsubstantiated conspiracy theories sprouting around any step that fb takes. There was a full page ad in Economic Times, where Zuke wrote a letter, and he blatantly said the platform was a way to get users on-line and pay for connectivity. No need to even read between the lines. 

Also, fb is deploying technology in remote areas. They want to launch drones with wi-fi to give connectivity to unconnected rural areas. The government wants to impose some regulations on that as well. 
Adopt open source for connectivity: TRAI - The Hindu

this should give you an idea just how India focused Zuke is, generally 
Inside Facebook's Ambitious Plan to Connect the Whole World | WIRE


----------

