Senior leadership in the telecommunications industry has called for a review of net neutrality rules in India. Operators argue that they need greater freedom to provide differentiated services on 5G networks and generate revenue from their investments. However, proponents of net neutrality warn of the risk of violating the long-established principle of an open internet.
During a panel discussion at the Indian Mobile Congress, Rahul Watts, Chief Regulatory Officer of Bharti Airtel, stated the need to discuss whether existing principles should be reviewed. He noted that a broader dialogue about the fundamental aspects of the regulatory environment is necessary, rather than simply assuming the existence of the net neutrality principle.
Watts pointed out that there are regimes where net neutrality does not exist and questioned whether these are less significant in any way, or if they did not adhere to the open internet principle.
Earlier this year, Airtel launched a 5G network segmentation service called Fast Lane for its postpaid customers, which raised concerns regarding net neutrality. The Ministry of Telecommunications issued net neutrality principles in July 2018, after which amendments were made to the unified license for telecom and internet service providers. These principles require providing internet access without discrimination based on content, user, platform, application, or device.
Watts reported that the recent launch allowed Airtel to offer an enhanced experience to its postpaid customers while simultaneously improving overall network performance. He added that various models are being actively tested, and many are trying to use segmentation for enterprise business applications, questioning why business users cannot utilize a separate segment for video calls or communication apps.
Ben Weschner, Director of Government Relations for Vodafone Group, also called for greater flexibility for operators. He opined that the European open internet model, based on net neutrality, mistakenly assumes that any attempt at dynamism or differentiation constitutes discrimination. In his view, this is outdated thinking from the 3G era, when connectivity and content were considered one entity, whereas in reality, they are distinct.
He continued that if operators are allowed to be dynamic in managing their networks and acknowledge that connectivity is not a single homogeneous object but rather a set of different products, then operators worldwide can better realize the potential of 5G.
Watts mentioned that telecom operators have invested $6.5 billion over the last five years, yet only 40 percent of telecom assets in the country are connected to fiber optics, indicating a need for additional investment. He stated that 5G technology needs to be monetized, as without it, operators will find it difficult to plan investments in the next paradigm, given that the average revenue per user (ARPU) is below $3 despite the investments.
Both Watts and Weschner supported the open internet principle. Watts explained that he does not wish to disrupt the experience of his subscribers because modern technologies allow for the creation of differentiated segments that provide a special experience without compromising existing subscribers.
In contrast to the argument for greater differentiation, Nikhil Pahwa, founder of MediaNama, countered that network segmentation could divide businesses based on their ability to access different network services. He believes that creating such segments effectively divides business into types, and that innovation should occur without requesting permission to use specific segments, which is what ensures neutrality.
Pahwa, citing the growing use of personalized artificial intelligence agents, warned that the app economy is already undergoing upheaval, and adding another variable to the country's internet economy could lead to difficult times.