Net neutrality (News - Alert) recommendations suggested last week in India sparked mixed reactions. As of April 2015, there were no laws governing net neutrality in India, which would require that all Internet users be treated equally, without discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.

There have been ongoing debates concerning network neutrality in India and at the end of last year, they gathered public attention after Airtel (News - Alert), a mobile telephony service provider in India, announced it would include additional charges for making Voice over IP (VoIP) voice calls from its network using apps such as WhatsApp, Skype (News - Alert) and Viber.

On April 7, 2015, The Communication and Information Technology Minister, Ravi Shankar Prasad, said that a committee would be formed to study the net neutrality issue. The Competition Commission of India (CCI (News - Alert)) chairman, Ashok Chawla, said they were examining whether these practices were unfair. A few days later, a CCI official announced that they were waiting for final regulations from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). The Department of Telecommunication (DoT) also said that they were investigating the matter.

In response to a question on net neutrality, Ravi Shankar Prasad told Parliament on May 5, 2015, that the Government agreed with the view that blocking and deliberate slowing down or speeding up of lawful content on the Internet should not be permitted. This recommendation sparked mixed reactions.

It seems that there have already been a few violations of net neutrality principles by some Indian service providers. While the DoT was against platforms such as Facebook’s (News - Alert) Internet.org, it was willing to let a similar plan by Bharti Airtel, an Indian multinational telecommunications services company, to be allowed as long as it had prior clearance from TRAI.

Net neutrality implies that all Internet traffic is to be treated the same, with no priority given to an entity or company based on payment to content or service providers such as telecom companies. The neutrality debate flared up in India after Airtel launched its Airtel Zero platform, which would allow free access of some websites on its network. However, the companies were asked to pay Airtel for joining the platform.

Internet.org is Facebook’s plan to offer residents of developing countries free mobile access to selected websites. It has been pitched as a philanthropic initiative to connect the two thirds of the world that still do not have Internet access. The problem is that it can only be accessed using Bing. It is practices such as this that have caused the platform to be criticized for violating net neutrality and favoring Facebook's own services over its rivals.

One of the main issues is the fact that the DoT committee wants to treat international and domestic calls differently. In its suggestion to take a more liberal approach, a statement from the committee reads as follows, “In the case of Over-the-Top (OTT) VoIP international calling services, a liberal approach may be adopted. However, in the case of domestic calls (local and national), communication services by TSPs (telecom service providers) and OTT communication services may be treated similarly from a regulatory angle for the present.”

Telecom Watchdog member, R Chandrashekhar, who is also a former telecom secretary, feels that the DoT report on net neutrality is disappointing in its vagueness, and for failing to clearly define net neutrality. He immediately responded to the DoT’s comments with, “It (recommendation) will certainly amount to breach of privacy because without doing deep packet inspection, you will not be able to distinguish the content and you will not be able to find if it is voice or non-voice.”

It seems that the DoT’s recommendation on net neutrality could lead into violations of the right to privacy. If every VoIP call has to be looked at so closely to determine first if it is voice and then domestic, essentially all of the call information would be available for viewing.

On the one hand, you have the DoT committee recommending VoIP regulation, which such statements as “National security is paramount, regardless of treatment of Net neutrality. The measures to ensure compliance of security related requirements from OTT service providers need to be worked out through inter-ministerial consultations.”

On the other hand, the industry has responded with “Zero rating and other pro-access programs have the potential to dramatically expand Internet access in India and bring more people online, but the report fails to fully recognize the value and potential of such programs. Not all zero ratings are violating the Net Neutrality principles and especially in countries like India where the Internet penetration is very low, such services can actually help in faster proliferation of broadband.”

How surprising is it to hear that a committee report designed to describe something is vague and ambiguous? It seems that the debate will continue as to whether the DoT’s report and recommendations are helpful or harmful for India’s Internet future.