The pivot struck by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) last Friday, when it released a discussion paper proposing regulation of social media platforms such as WhatsApp, Google Meet and Telegram, has predictably evoked a mixed reaction. On one hand it is being cheered by telecom operators who have been lobbying for a level playing field – “same service, same rules”. On the other hand, serious concerns are being raised on privacy invasion and net neutrality.
Over the past 10 years, telecom operators saw revenues from voice calls decline 94 per cent and from SMS fall 80 per cent as internet-based calling and messaging services offered by these platforms found favour. Bringing such platforms under the regulatory ambit through licensing could mean that OTT platforms would have to pay additional fees and revenue share and assist law enforcement with user data and investigation when necessary.
OTT platforms, which have till now been allowed to operate in India without a license, have long opposed increased regulatory oversight, arguing that it could stifle innovation and increase privacy concerns. Experts also believe that such regulations could drive the technology away from responsible players and into the hands of unorganised players pandering and subservient to the government’s whims.
“It is very important that regulations are always developed with a long-term view, in conjunction with the players being regulated, and not in a protectionist way trying to preserve old revenue streams,” said Utkarsh Sinha, managing director, Bexley Advisors.
“The unfortunate result of this would be the rise of pliant platforms who are willing to bend to these rules, and that ultimately serves to undermine both the consumer interest and public interest. The largest impact would be on privacy and the expectation of privacy,” he added.
On the other side, in February this year, the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), the apex body representing telecom operators in India, had backed a demand for extracting a ‘usage charge’ from OTT platforms “for leveraging their networks to provide profitable services.”
“With the constantly and rapidly evolving digital technologies ecosystem, devising a future-ready regulatory mechanism to deal with newly emerging issues is a commendable step indeed,” S P Kochhar, director general, COAI told DH.
Selective ban vs privacy protection
Voicing fears of misuse of the platforms for terrorist or criminal interests, in its paper, the watchdog highlighted that any blanket pause on telecom and internet services is stressful for citizens and the economy. This has prompted discussion over specific bans. In fact, the issue was first raised by a parliamentary standing committee, which had recommended the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to draw up a policy regarding the same.
Trai has also sought suggestions for provisions that should be made in a licensing/regulatory framework for OTT communication services regarding “lawful interception”, “privacy and security” and “customer verification”, among others.
“These are serious questions that may prompt regulatory proposals leading to further eroding privacy of users, end-to-end encryption on platforms such as Signal and WhatsApp and formalise a whitelisting approach in which bans are made on a class of services that provide communication services such as even social media messaging and sharing,” tweeted lawyer and Internet Freedom Foundation founder-director Apar Gupta while encouraging citizens to participate with their suggestions.
Net neutrality
There are worries that net neutrality, that ensures internet service providers are not discriminatory on access to content, will be sacrificed at this alter of regulatory efforts. Selective banning of communication services could infringe on not just privacy but the fundamental tenet of internet, experts pointed out.
“Overregulation of this kind can fundamentally alter the discourse on net neutrality -both from a negotiating standpoint (as incumbents will want the regulator to relent on net neutrality principles to give in to the privacy related changes sought), and from an economics perspective (as it is difficult to keep a platform open and sustainable economically at the same time), especially in the face of regulation. It could be a dangerous step in that direction,” Sinha underscored.