REDMOND, Wash. — Feb. 21, 2008 — Microsoft Corp. today announced a set of broad-reaching changes to its technology and business practices to increase the openness of its products and drive greater interoperability, opportunity and choice for developers, partners, customers and competitors.
Specifically, Microsoft is implementing four new interoperability principles and corresponding actions across its high-volume business products: (1) ensuring open connections; (2) promoting data portability; (3) enhancing support for industry standards; and (4) fostering more open engagement with customers and the industry, including open source communities.
"Ensuring open connections to Microsoft’s high-volume products. To enhance connections with third-party products, Microsoft will publish on its Web site documentation for all application programming interfaces (APIs) and communications protocols in its high-volume products that are used by other Microsoft products. Developers do not need to take a license or pay a royalty or other fee to access this information. Open access to this documentation will ensure that third-party developers can connect to Microsoft’s high-volume products just as Microsoft’s other products do. "
"Microsoft is providing a covenant not to sue open source developers for development or non-commercial distribution of implementations of these protocols. These developers will be able to use the documentation for free to develop products."
More after the jump, direct from Microsoft:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2008/feb08/02-21ExpandInteroperabilityPR.mspx?rss_fdn=Press%20Releases
Thank you to anyone who takes the time to read this and explain if it means any positive news for our Windows Mobile devices. They aren't high-volume devices according to the press release, and they didn't specifically mention them, but they are opening up the APIs for Exchange Server. Will that help in making apps for our XDAs? Interesting read anyways.
Here's my take.
There are two reasons for doing this.
First, as the world business climate changes and MS grows, antitrust issues are not going away. With a high probability of a democratic presidency, you can pretty well plan on more probes into MS business practices. EU regulators have already stated that they are going to be watching this one closely. Open architecture would place MS in a better position to defend themselves.
Second, "open" increases dependency. If you are a developer and you build your tools around the "open" MS architecture, where are you going to send your customers to buy base applications? In theory this would increase the number of units sold (breadth) but not increase the number of functions provided (depth). The net impact would be a much more stable revenue base for MS and not an "all or nothing" approach. Remember, Microsoft does not do ANYTHING that they do not believe contributes to their long term viability or profitability.
Originally Posted by timothyon Saturday October 20, @08:27AM
from the that's-why-they-buy-guns dept.
Trailrunner7 writes "There are thousands of apps in the Google Play mobile market that contain serious mistakes in the way that SSL/TLS is implemented, leaving them vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks that could compromise sensitive user data such as banking credentials, credit card numbers and other information. Researchers from a pair of German universities conducted a detailed analysis of thousands of Android apps and found that better than 15 percent of those apps had weak or bad SSL implementations. The researchers conducted a detailed study of 13,500 of the more popular free apps on Google Play, the official Android app store, looking at the SSL/TLS implementations in them and trying to determine how complete and effective those implementations are. What they found is that more than 1,000 of the apps have serious problems with their SSL implementations that make them vulnerable to MITM attacks, a common technique used by attackers to intercept wireless data traffic. In its research, the team was able to intercept sensitive user data from these apps, including credit card numbers, bank account information, PayPal credentials and social network credentials."
Refrence http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/10...mentations-leave-many-android-apps-vulnerable
I myself have implemented them for shopping apps (SSL for anything dealing with user details, payment, etc.). When you're communicating with an external service that requires (or where you want to use) encrypted connections and that service only offers SSL (this is probably 90% of the time) you need to use it. Now the catch here is that the standard SSL handlers available to you in Android provide an "ideal" setup, where servers and certs are exactly as they "should" be. The problem is unless you are paying rediculous amounts for dedicated SSL services and high quality certs your setup will not be the "ideal", and you'll have to make exceptions by overriding code.
As an example, in the shopping system I set up there were two sets of certs, one set was signed [payment gateway] the other wasn't [user control panel]. I had to jump through a few hoops, and the app would be open for man-in-the-middle if set up right - but luckily all they'd get would be user login details, address and phone number - billing is all external and requires a separate authorization.
As spreading news about the issue among would only be able to protect privacy and crucial information of the consumers
all discussion regarding this issue are being welcomed kindly try to focus to fix this issue
NCIT Solutions provides offshore IT, web design, software programming services for clients in the US and worldwide, with offshore prices and the best quality.
The mission of NCIT Solutions is to provide viable and lower cost outsourcing solutions. We offer you tailored offshore services to supplement your development effort. Our services can help you lower costs in solving real-world business problems while enabling new competitive advantages and delivering tangible value. The main competencies of our software team are focused on data entry, customer sales, transcription services, software development and customer service. We operate on a wide variety of systems such as: Linux, UNIX, Solaris, and Windows 9 x/NT/2000/XP/CE, Symbian OS, Palm OS, and Pocket PC.
NCIT Solutions is an independent and unique organization that was created specifically with the aim of providing offshore/outsourcing facilities to clients to take advantage of business opportunities and to facilitate business relationships between U.S. and Middle East companies. Our activities seek to expedite the new economic growth in Jordan consistent with the creation of free and fair markets for the Middle East region.
· Individual outsourcing facilities uniquely tailored for each customer.
· Identification of available market resources and potential partners
· On-the-ground management and support in Jordan
· Legal, technical and cultural support for ventures.
NCIT Solutions maintains a physical presence with staff on the ground in Amman Jordan. Many global companies have opened offices in Amman Jordan in order to better facilitate partnerships and joint ventures with Middle East companies. We can also provide businesses with space and easy access to our business support services through our affiliate in Amman Jordan.
WE DO ALL TYPES OF SOFTWARE/WEB DESIGN WORK AT THE LOWEST GUARANTEED PRICE
Android hardening - secure handling of personal data - local storage YES - cloud NO - Options and solutions
===========================================================================================================
Nowadays, when software developers sell "their products to the consumers" and "themselves to government agencies", it's essential to safeguard personal data of any kind.
Not because you are breaking the law in your country and are afraid for authorities.
But for respect of your private integrity and personal data.
Even more when you have your own business and government agencies use your private data for economical espionage and give your private company data to your competitors. That explains how various big companies from North America have won contracts against competitors from Europe, or viceversa.
So here come few advices for owners of Android smartphones.
1. Use a decent firewall with detailed logging capability: ukanth AFWall+, JTScholl Android Firewall.
Authorise only programs which you are well-informed what they do and where they go.
2. Use a good permissions logger/filtering program in interractive mode: Marcel Bokhorst XPrivacy.
Grant permissions only in interactive mode and use your knowledge and common sense to understand which program asks for a certain permission.
If you need a good program, but it asks for strange or anormal permissions thinking of what that progarm is suppose to do (use your thinking),
simply grant only permissions that you think are acceptable, in interactive mode, and check the logg of XPrivacy and of your firewall for all the communications. Block anything which looks suspicious.
The above tools are essential, does not matter you are from USA, Russia, China, Iran.
3. The security suite. Depending on your country and relations in respect to world powers, choose accordingly.
Are you from USA, hard to trust a chinese or russian product.
Are you from Russia, best protection comes from a russian product. Never trust a product made in USA or UK.
Are you from the 3rd world (Brazil, India, Indonesia, Iran - be well informed who are the enemies of your country - and never trust products from them).
It would be total inconscience for Iran to use USA or UK or Israel products.
Are you an international corporation spread, use at least double-layered security gateways with products from both USA and Russia or China, you'll see how they react against deetcted malware, according to its country of origin.
Don't be surprised if Symantec or McAfee or Comodo don't detect Stuxnet derivates.
4. Protection of own passwords, sensitive personal data, and so on.
NEVER use cloud solutions and any product with included cloud functionality and no local import/export of data.
On the list of shame comes almost all known products in category: Password Managers and Browsers.
Only exceptions: KeePassDroid, Keepass2Android Offline. (we'll see how long the Germany government will let the authors develop without introducing backdoors .
The only secure information managers which really can assure a minimal level of security for your private data.
Both freewares.
All other commercial products use only cloud for import/export/sync, and your private data is directly accessible to known government agencies.
Only browser with local import/export of bookmarks/passwords is Habit Browser (we'll see how long the Japan government will let the author develop without introducing backdoors .
All other browsers do not allow local import/export of bookmarks/passwords, only sync via cloud and your privacy is gone.
5. Regarding to anti-theft software. Same rules apply as at 3. (all depends on your country). Best, take well care of your device. The anti-theft has a double-face: depending on your software and most of your phone operator, it is not always to recommend to track your device. Many operators, even in foreign countries, give total access to government agencies into their infrastructure.
6. Email. Encrypt it, save it only locally on device and avoid sync to cloud or email apps doing that.
A good email program is MailDroid, but still not totally secure, due to its juridical placement on USA territory.
For better safety, use a browser and encrypted webmail.
Pity for AquaMail, a good but like Siber Systems Roboform Password Manager, pays its "tribute" to government agencies no local storage of individual emails. If we would make a joke, it seems that NSA pays better than all sold licenses for AquaMail, same as for Roboform Password Manager.
What is funny is that the author is living in Russia.
The list of big deceptions, products claiming respect your privacy and helping you doing it, but only empty words.
Mozilla Firefox browser and Siber Systems Roboform Password Manager. More than a year ago I contacted their managers and developers, they promised local import/export/sync. Nothing yet. Well, both being under USA jurisdictions, it's not a surprise, the USA government dictates (sorry NSA ).
With respect,
Zeno Sloim
http://zenosloim.blogspot.com/2014/10/android-hardening-secure-handling-of.html
This message is only for people who live or vote in India. If you are not such a person, please forward it to someone who is.
What is net neutrality?
The principle that all traffic on internet should be treated the same.
No site will be sped up.
No website will be slowed down (throttling).
----------
So what's happening now?
TRAI consultation paper (open to comments till April 24) is the first step in potentially allowing operators to discriminate internet traffic.
----------
How does this impact me?
1. Your internet bill could go up.
2. Apps you love may no longer work.
ISPs and Telcos could charge you more. When you buy a 1 Gb data pack, you can use it for anything you wish. Without neutrality, you could be forced to buy a Skype pack for Skype calls, a video pack to watch YouTube and dailymotion.
Or you could be charged a different rate for each service. 4p/10 KB if you are browsing, but 10p/10 KB for VoIP calls. That would be like your milkman telling you 30 Rs/L if you make tea, but 75 Rs/L if you make milkshake.
You could be denied service as well. Telcos could decide that WhatsApp or Viber is eating into their sms revenue and block them completely.
Or Airtel could block gaana, saavn, hungama, rdio etc and allow access only to wynk (owned by airtel)
----------
Hmm.. I want to know more.
Sure follow the links here:
Well written article: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/b...trai-trying-screw-internet-users-2193321.html
A video explanation: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_G-OagxdCws
Another cool video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mfY1NKrzqi0
Another video: https://youtu.be/uQjkCziopLA
Take some Action: http://www.savetheinternet.in/
----------
OK. Got it. What can I do?
Let TRAI know that you hate this idea. Go to http://www.savetheinternet.in/ and follow the instructions to email TRAI letting them know of your displeasure.
----------
Anything else I can do?
Yes. Inform family and friends about net neutrality and TRAI's attempts to kill it (under pressure from telcos probably).
You can also protest on https://www.change.org/p/rsprasad-t...e-how-they-want-to-use-internet-netneutrality
Contact your mp today http://j.mp/MailMyMP if there is no net neutrality, we will have to pay to use WhatsApp, Facebook, hike, Google, YouTube, etc.
Hashtag revolution #NetNeutralityIndia , #SaveTheInternet , #wewantnetneutrality and #TRAIDontevenTry
---------
Why do we need net neutrality?
India is a developing country. If there is no net neutrality, we cant develop ourselves.
Poor people; instead of getting onto the internet would stop using it completely as they wont be able to pay
Answers to those 20 questions (thanks to savetheinternet.in)
To the Chairman, TRAIThank you for giving me this opportunity to share my views on the consultation paper published by TRAI on March 27, 2015 titled "Regulatory Framework For Over-the-Top (OTT) Services”. I am worried that this consultation paper makes sweeping assumptions about the Internet, and does not take a neutral and balanced view of the subject of Internet Licensing and Net Neutrality. Any public consultation must be approached in a neutral manner by the regulator, so that people can form an informed opinion.I strongly support an open internet, for which I believe it is critical to uphold net neutrality and reject any moves towards licensing of Internet applications and Web services. I urge TRAI to commit to outlining measures to protect and advance net neutrality for all Indians. Net neutrality requires that the Internet be maintained as an open platform, on which network providers treat all content, applications and services equally, without discrimination. The TRAI must give importance to safeguarding the interests of our country’s citizens and the national objective of Digital India and Make In India, over claims made by some corporate interests.I request that my response be published on the TRAI website alongside other comments filed, in line with past practice regarding public consultations. I urge that TRAI issue a specific response to user submissions after examining the concerns raised by them, and hold open house discussions across India, accessible to users and startups before making any recommendations.
Question 1: Is it too early to establish a regulatory framework for Internet/OTT services, since internet penetration is still evolving, access speeds are generally low and there is limited coverage of high-speed broadband in the country? Or, should some beginning be made now with a regulatory framework that could be adapted to changes in the future? Please comment with justifications.
No new regulatory framework in the telecom sector is required for Internet services and apps - and no such regulation should come into effect in future either.This question incorrectly presumes that regulation of the Internet is absent and there is a need to create it. Additionally, the technical language of “Over-the-Top” applications used in the consultation paper fails to convey that it is truly referring to the online services and applications which make today’s Internet which we all use; Facebook, Ola, Zomato, Paytm, WhatsApp, Zoho and Skype etc. The Internet is already subject to existing law in India - any extra regulatory or licensing regime will only be detrimental to the customer and to Indian firms developing online services and apps.Under the current regulatory framework, users can access the internet-based services and apps either for a low fee or for free where the application owners make money by selling advertisements based on user data. With additional regulations and licenses, it will make it expensive for these services to reach out to their customers eventually leading to higher prices and undesirable levels of advertising - which is against the public interest and counterproductive.It appears that the telecom companies are shifting goalposts. Many telecom companies have earlier argued in the consultation paper floated by TRAI on mobile value added services (MVAS) that it was not necessary to regulate these value added services. They said MVAS are already governed by general laws under the Indian legal system and comply with the security interests as they operate on the networks of legitimate telecom license holders. Internet platforms also are regulated and governed by general laws in addition to specialised laws such as the Information Technology Act, and the same treatment should be extended to them as well.As TRAI said previously in its recommendations after consulting on MVAS regulation:“The Authority preferred least intrusive and minimal regulatory framework and thus no separate category of licence for value added services is envisaged. After second round of consultations, the Authority is also not favoring registration of Value Added Service Providers (VASPs) or content aggregators under the “Other Service Provider (OSP)” category.”“Content shall be subject to relevant content regulation and compliance of prevailing copyrights including digital management rights and other laws on the subject (para 3.12.2). The content is subjected to content regulation/ guidelines of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Information Technology Act, 2000, Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, Indian Copyright Act etc., as amended from time to time. The content regulation shall be as per law in force from time to time. There should be consistency in the treatment of content across all kinds of media including print, digital/multimedia to avoid any discrimination. (para 3.13.3):”
Imposing a licensing and regulation regime carry significant risks of destroying innovation. Launching new services and features will take more time and will make it difficult for new startups with low cash reserves to enter the market. It will basically ring the death knell for the country's fast-growing digital media sector.
Question 2: Should the Internet/OTT players offering communication services (voice, messaging and video call services through applications (resident either in the country or outside) be brought under the licensing regime? Please comment with justifications.
Firstly, there is no need for licensing of internet based communication service providers. To suggest such a move further points towards the TRAI consultation being tilted in favour of telecom operators.
Secondly, fundamentally both Internet-based communication services and non-communication services are the same. They sit on top of the network provided by telecom operators. And the spectrum that telecom operators utilise to offer this network on pipe is already licensed, hence there is no need for additional licensing.
This issue also needs to be looked at from another perspective. Many non-communication services on the Internet also offer real-time chat or video interaction features for the benefit of customers, which will be affected by bringing such services under a licensing regime.
The extent of innovation we have witnessed over the years has been greatly aided by the low cost of entry. Any form of regulation or licensing will increase the entry cost, thereby hindering innovation and equal opportunity to startups to establish themselves in the market. Behind every Zoho, WhatsApp and Skype there are numerous failures. Licensing will essentially increase the cost and likelihood of failure - and greatly discourage innovation.
Question 3: Is the growth of Internet/OTT impacting the traditional revenue stream of Telecom operators/Telecom operators? If so, is the increase in data revenues of the Telecom Operators sufficient to compensate for this impact? Please comment with reasons.
There is no evidence of data revenues cannibalizing revenues from voice or SMS. In fact, data usage is soaring and it is driving the demand for telecom networks.
The question fails to acknowledge that revenue from data services also fall under the traditional revenue streams category as per the Unified Access License Agreement
[http://www.dot.gov.in/access-services/introduction-unified-access-servicescellular-mobile-services]. So, to assume that data services are impacting the growth of “traditional revenue streams” is wrong.
Services such as Skype and WhatsApp have specific use cases. They are not, and should not be, considered as substitutes to voice calling or SMS. For instance, calls made using VoIP don’t have the same clarity that we have on voice calls. Moreover, services such as WhatsApp are used for real-time chatting as opposed to SMS. Voice and SMS have their own benefits and use cases, so do VoIP and internet messaging. Customers should be free to pick and choose among these.
There is still no concrete evidence suggesting that the decline in the revenues from messaging and voice calling is due to the growth of revenues from data services, and statements from experts and industry experts appear to in fact point to there being no cannibalization of revenues.
Gopal Vittal, CEO, Airtel
“There is still no evidence that suggests that there is cannibalization,” he said when asked about whether data is cannibalizing Airtel’s voice business. On internet messaging cannibalizing SMS revenues, he said: “At this point in time is very, very tiny. And so it is not really material as we look at it.”
[http://www.medianama.com/2015/02/22...tion-of-voice-airtel-india-ceo-gopal-vittal/]
Vittorio Colao, CEO, Vodafone
“Growth in India has accelerated again (October-December), driven by data” [http://computer.financialexpress.com/columns/india-high-on-3g/9462/]
The company’s India unit grew by 15%, going past its counterparts during the quarter ending December as customers used its data services. [http://articles.economictimes.india...ervice-revenue-vittorio-colao-vodafone-india]
Question 4: Should the Internet/OTT players pay for use of the Telecom Operators network over and above data charges paid by consumers? If yes, what pricing options can be adopted? Could such options include prices based on bandwidth consumption? Can prices be used as a means of product/service differentiation? Please comment with justifications.
Internet-based services and apps don’t pay for telecom operators for using the network, and it should remain the same going forward. Forcing Internet-based services to pay extra for using a particular network negatively impact consumers and harm the Indian digital ecosystem. As mentioned in the above answer, data revenues of Indian telecom operators is already on an upswing and is slated to increase rapidly over the next few years, hence the argument for creating a new revenue source is not justified.
Charging users extra for specific apps or services will overburden them, which in turn will lead to them not using the services at all. It is also akin to breaking up the Internet into pieces, which is fundamentally against what Net Neutrality stands for. Also, the Internet depends on interconnectivity and the users being able to have seamless experience - differential pricing will destroy the very basic tenets of the Internet.
Question 5: Do you agree that imbalances exist in the regulatory environment in the operation of Internet/OTT players? If so, what should be the framework to address these issues? How can the prevailing laws and regulations be applied to Internet/OTT players (who operate in the virtual world) and compliance enforced? What could be the impact on the economy? Please comment with justifications.
There is no regulatory imbalance in the environment in which the internet services and applications operate. In fact, the word “regulatory imbalance” is incorrect here. Telecom operators holds licenses to spectrum which is a public resource. Internet services and applications don’t have to acquire licenses. Moreover, there is a clear distinction between services provided by telecom operators and internet platforms—so no additional regulation is required.
Also, internet services and applications are already well-covered under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Indian Penal Code, 1860. More importantly, internet services are intermediaries that allow a communication system for their users—and intermediaries cannot be held responsible for the acts of their users as per Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. Our Supreme Court has recently ruled on this area in the Shreya Singhal versus Union of India case, holding that Internet content is protected by our Constitution’s right to free expression and setting out the acceptable limits for government regulation.
Question 6: How should the security concerns be addressed with regard to OTT players providing communication services? What security conditions such as maintaining data records, logs etc. need to be mandated for such OTT players? And, how can compliance with these conditions be ensured if the applications of such OTT players reside outside the country? Please comment with justifications.
The internet services and apps are well-covered under the existing laws and regulations. These include the Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Telegraph Act, Indian Telegraph Rules, and the Information Technology Act and its different rules pertaining to intermediaries and interception. These different regulations allow the Indian government and law enforcement agencies to access the data stored by internet platforms when deemed legally necessary. Any additional regulations carry grave risk of breaching user privacy and would also require constitutional review - especially since the Government is still working on a proposed Privacy Bill.
The government and courts also have the power to block access to websites on the grounds of national security and public order. It has taken similar steps in the past and has been widely reported by the media. The transparency reports periodically published by major internet companies suggests Indian government routinely requests for user data and blocking of user accounts. Between July 2014 and December 2014, Indian authorities had 5,473 requests for data, covering 7,281 user accounts from Facebook and the company had a compliance rate of 44.69%. Google had a compliance rate of 61% with respect to the requests made by different government agencies across India.
Question 7: How should the OTT players offering app services ensure security, safety and privacy of the consumer? How should they ensure protection of consumer interest? Please comment with justifications.
Although user privacy and security is of paramount importance, additional regulation carries the inherent risk of breaching user privacy which is not in the consumer’s interest. The Information Technology Act, 2000 already addresses the security concerns of the user. But more importantly, any criminal act committed using these platforms can be tried under the Indian Penal Code. So, there is no need to burden the internet platforms with additional regulations.
Also, it is worth noting that many telecom companies in India have not made information publicly available as to whether and how they comply with regulations that guarantee security, privacy and safety of the customer. TRAI’s current paper fails to articulate why the internet services and apps should be brought under similar regulations.
Question 8:
In what manner can the proposals for a regulatory framework for OTTs in India draw from those of ETNO, referred to in para 4.23 or the best practices summarised in para 4.29? And, what practices should be proscribed by regulatory fiat? Please comment with justifications.
ETNO is similar to India’s COAI which makes it an industry lobby group. Understandably, the suggestions made by ETNO heavily favor the telecom companies and will be detrimental to customers if India refers to their suggestions.
ETNO’s stand have been widely criticized in the past. Europe’s own group of government regulators [Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication (BEREC)]
http://berec.europa.eu/files/document_register_store/2012/11/BoR_(12)_120_BEREC_on_ITR.pdf ETNO’s proposals could jeopardize the “continued development of the open, dynamic and global platform that the Internet provides” which will “lead to an overall loss of welfare”. Additionally, the international free expression group Article 19 says ETNO’s proposal “would seriously undermine net neutrality.
According to Access Now, ETNO’s recommendations would have meant higher data charges for customers while from an entrepreneur’s standpoint, it will limit their ability to reach out to a wider market. For a small but fast growing startup and digital media sector in India, this can potentially ring the death knell. ETNO’s suggestions on this subject so far have failed to have been accepted by any government agency - including the regulators in their own host countries. It is therefore especially troubling that TRAI is choosing to make one of their proposals a pillar of this public consultation here in India.
Question 9: What are your views on net-neutrality in the Indian context? How should the various principles discussed in para 5.47 be dealt with? Please comment with justifications.
Net Neutrality, by definition, means no discrimination of traffic flowing on the internet with respect to speed, access and price. Chile and Brazil, which are developing countries just like India, have passed laws supporting net neutrality. This is in addition to government commitments to implement net neutrality legislation in the United States and European Union.
India has 1 billion people without internet access and it is imperative for our democracy to have an open and free internet where users are free to choose the services they want to access—instead of a telecom operator deciding what information they can access.
Internet apps and services are expected to contribute 5% to India’s GDP by 2020. That will only happen of entrepreneurs, big and small, have a level playing field that encourages innovation and non-preferential treatment—something that net neutrality ensures.
Assuming there is no net neutrality, only the big players will be able to strike deals with telcos while the smaller players remain inaccessible, which will go against the principles of net neutrality as listed below:
No blocking by TSPs and ISPs on specific forms of internet traffic, services and applications.
No slowing or “throttling” internet speeds by TSPs and ISPs on specific forms of internet traffic, services and applications.
No preferential treatment of services and platforms by TSPs and ISPs.
It is also worth noting that the proposed framework will give too much power in the hands of the telecom companies, which is not healthy for the ecosystem.
Question 10: What forms of discrimination or traffic management practices are reasonable and consistent with a pragmatic approach? What should or can be permitted? Please comment with justifications.
This question assumes that traffic discrimination is necessary and is a norm. Rather, traffic discrimination should be an exception as it is against the principles of net neutrality.
In such exceptional cases, telecom companies need to have the permission of TRAI or other competent government agency through public hearing to carry out “traffic management” to ensure transparency in the entire process. Further, it should be kept in mind that such steps shouldn’t interfere with the access, affordability and quality of the services.
More importantly, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda.../Traffic Management Investigation BEREC_2.pdf jointly by BEREC and the European Commission suggest that the propensity of the telecom operators to restrict access of internet services is high. The report noted that telecom operators were most inclined to block and throttle P2P services on mobile as well as fixed line networks. VoIP, on the other hand, was blocked mostly on telecom networks.
Keeping this in mind, TRAI needs to ensure that instances of discrimination of traffic should be few, far between and, above all, transparent
Continued
Question 11: Should the TSPs be mandated to publish various traffic management techniques used for different OTT applications? Is this a sufficient condition to ensure transparency and a fair regulatory regime?
The question is based on the premise that publishing various traffic management techniques for Internet services will ensure a fair regulatory regime and therefore such discrimination is permissible. As I have repeatedly said in the above answers, discrimination of services will not bring about a fair regime for users.
Further, a recent study [http://bit.ly/1D7QEp9] in the UK has pointed out that merely publishing data on traffic management will not translate into a fair regime. The study found that most consumers did not understand traffic management or use it as a basis for switching operators. Those who did do so comprised a group perceived to be small or insignificant enough that most network operators did not seek to factor them into their product decisions, despite some consumers’ complaints about traffic management. In India where awareness and activism on issues of net neutrality is considerably less, it is unlikely to play the critical role that the Consultation Paper suggests.
Question 12: How should a conducive and balanced environment be created such that TSPs are able to invest in network infrastructure and CAPs are able to innovate and grow? Who should bear the network upgradation costs? Please comment with justifications
The underlying assumption of the question suggests that currently there is an imbalance in the environment within which telecom operators and internet services operate. However, as I have pointed out it my previous answers, no such imbalance exists. Telecom firms and internet services have distinct functions. The former has to provide the infrastructure to access content and the latter has to provide the platforms for users to create content. As financial results of the telecom operators and analysis by various independent agencies have shown that revenues from data are soaring. So, it makes logical sense for the telecom operators to invest to upgrade and improve their network infrastructure.
On the contrary, I would argue that there is no incentive for the telecom firms to invest to upgrade their networks if they charge the CAP instead of charging the customer for data. They would seek to further increase its revenues coming from the CAPs, a move that will be disastrous for India's telecommunications industry.
Question 13: Should TSPs be allowed to implement non-price based discrimination of services? If so, under what circumstances are such practices acceptable? What restrictions, if any, need to be placed so that such measures are not abused? What measures should be adopted to ensure transparency to consumers? Please comment with justifications.
Discrimination of services in any form is detrimental for the growth of the telecom industry itself and there should be no circumstance for a telecom operator to do so. Given the diverse nature of the Internet, telecom operators should not be allowed to determine what type of service should get more priority. For example, a consumer in India probably relies on VoIP calls to keep in touch with people abroad and if there is throttling of these services, it infringes on the user’s fundamental right of freedom of expression. An Internet service that a telecom operator thinks which could lead to traffic congestion, might be vital to consumers. Further, a telecom operator might use throttling to further a service promoted by them and induce consumers into using them, thereby eliminating choice.
Transparency alone will not bring about a fair regime for users, and it is crucial that TSPs be prohibited from discriminating between services
Question 14: Is there a justification for allowing differential pricing for data access and OTT communication services? If so, what changes need to be brought about in the present tariff and regulatory framework for telecommunication services in the country? Please comment with justifications.
As I have argued in my previous answers, there should be no differential pricing for data access and internet services. Therefore, the need for a change in the tariff and regulatory framework is not required.
It is important to note that nearly one billion people still don't have internet access in India - which means telecom companies stand to gain substantially from their data services in the near future. Moreover, different pricing is tantamount to discrimination which goes against net neutrality.
As stated before, customers should be charged on the basis of volume of data used and not on the basis of the internet services they are accessing.
Question 15: Should OTT communication service players be treated as Bulk User of Telecom Services (BuTS)? How should the framework be structured to prevent any discrimination and protect stakeholder interest? Please comment with justification.
Treating OTT communication service players as Bulk User of Telecom Services again amounts to discrimination of data services and hence it should not be allowed. The question also further assumes that the stakeholders are only the telecom operators and not the consumers. If only the interests of the telecom operators are protected by treating services which compete with their traditional services differently rather than innovating themselves, it would lead to a situation of anti-competitiveness. Telecom companies have an interest in imposing their control over information and communication networks, but the price of that would mean stifling competition, increased barriers for innovation and business and eventually infringe on the fundamental rights of Indian citizens.
Question 16: What framework should be adopted to encourage India-specific OTT apps? Please comment with justifications.
A recent Deloitte report titled Technology, Media and Telecommunications India Predictions 2015 predicted that paid apps will generate over Rs 1500 crore revenues in 2015 (http://bit.ly/1alhH5S). Increased acceptance of paid apps can only be possible if there’s Network Neutrality. In fact, Deepinder Goyal, the founder and CEO of the highly successful app Zomato recently commented "Couldn’t have built Zomato if we had a competitor on something like Airtel Zero"
The moment an app developer/company is forced to tie-up with a telecom operator to ensure that users opt for it, an artificial prohibitive barrier will be created. All app developers and the companies behind them need to be provided an even playing field.
We also need more reports on the Indian app economy, to understand, firstly, how the adoption and usage of apps is changing and, secondly, to comprehend its impact on the Indian economy.
Question 17: If the OTT communication service players are to be licensed, should they be categorised as ASP or CSP? If so, what should be the framework? Please comment with justifications.
The question of categorising doesn’t even arise, because as mentioned earlier any extra regulations or licensing is going to be detrimental to the end user. Requiring licensing of online services and mobile apps under the current telecom framework in India will have enormous negative consequences. The impossibly onerous burdens imposed by such licensing would results in many such globally developed services and apps not being launched in India - and our own startup efforts to develop local versions of such apps being killed in their early stages. The net results would be decreased consumer benefit and a massive slowdown in innovation and reduced “Make in India” efforts due to the regulatory cost of doing business becoming very high.
Question 18: Is there a need to regulate subscription charges for OTT communication services? Please comment with justifications.
Subscription charges for such apps need to be allowed to evolve as it would in a pure market economy. The subscribers (buyers) would want to pay the lowest possible price, and the app developers/companies (sellers) would want to charge as much as possible, eventually leading to a fair price.
Subscription charges for such Internet-based services have remained, more or less, quite low in India, especially because the cost of switching from one service provider to another is also quite low: This competition will ensure that charges remain fair, without the need to regulate them, going forward as well. As noted in response to earlier questions, existing Indian law also applies to online services - which would include the Consumer Protection Act and other regulations meant to prevent cheating or other illegal pricing issues.
Question 19: What steps should be taken by the Government for regulation of non-communication OTT players? Please comment with justifications.
As mentioned earlier, irrespective of what an OTT app is used for (communication, online shopping, etc) they’re all essentially Internet-based services, and hence there is no question of creating new regulatory measures.
Question 20: Are there any other issues that have a bearing on the subject discussed?
Here are the additional steps that I urge the TRAI to undertake in the interest of the public:
- Due to the absence of any formal regulations on net neutrality, TRAI should issue an order or regulation preventing network neutrality violations by telecom service providers. Some telecom companies have shown scant respect for the issues presently under consideration and despite its questionable legality have rolled out various services which violate network neutrality. Any delay in forming regulations or preventing them in the interim till the process is complete is only likely to consolidate their status. This is not only an affront to the Internet users in India but also to the regulatory powers of the TRAI.
- TRAI is requested to publish all the responses and counter responses to the consultation, including any other additional material, on its website.
- For better public involvement and awareness, open house debates should be held in major Indian cities after the consultation process is over.
In the US, there was a time when you had to pay for tethering. Imagine if it would happen in India