\n
\nHow would you compare the TRAI ruling in India with net neutrality legislations elsewhere in the world?<\/strong>
\n
Regulator<\/a>s around the world are looking at how to deal with zero-rating right now. Trai is the first regulator to focus exclusively on issues of differential pricing and exempting applications from data caps. As a result, they could come up with a holistic approach to these practices. Part of the reason why we have seen other regulators in the US or the EU adopt case-by-case decisions is that they were thinking of the many aspects of net neutrality at once. They focused on rules for blocking and technical discrimination. When they got to zero-rating, they basically ran out of time and (decided to) deal with it case by case.
\n
\nBut India would have to look at those other issues later too.<\/strong>
\n
\nYes. The net neutrality regime is incomplete if it only addresses economic forms of discrimination like zero rating, or only technical forms of discrimination. The simple insight at the core of net neutrality is that we do not want companies that connect us to the internet to control what happens on the internet. If you only ban one practice and not the others, you haven’t really protected the open internet. What’s great about the Indian decision is that it provides a full set of rules for different types of zero rating. These give certainty to the market.
\n
\nDo you think the Trai decision makes a clear enough distinction between differential and discriminatory treatment of data services?<\/strong>
\n
\nThe Trai decision is more nuanced than that. It bans harmful forms of price differentiation but allows forms that do not create concerns. The practices banned by the regulation are zero rating for a fee. I think that is a right decision because allowing application providers to pay to be zero-rated is to allow them to pay to get a competitive advantage. That will change the internet as we know it. On the internet, low costs have allowed a large number of people to develop new applications and become entrepreneurs. That’s the first big practice banned by the rules. The second is any kind of differential pricing or exemption from bandwidth caps based on content or type of content. So that applies to programs where an ISP zerorates a few applications and a class of similar applications. Third category is where an ISP says my zero rating-program is open to all providers in a certain category and there is no fee...
\n
\nThat was the argument of Facebook’s Free Basics.<\/strong>
\n
\nAt first sight, these offerings look a lot less harmful. But once you look closer, these kinds of programs create real problems for innovation and free speech. The (technical) requirements are rather substantial. In the case of T-Mobile’s Binge On program, technical requirements explicitly exclude certain innovative protocols. Similarly with Free Basics – most applications don’t immediately meet its requirements. As a content or service provider, you will probably have to make technical changes. Part of what is so exciting about the internet is that if your application complies with fundamental internet standards you can reach people around the world at a low cost. If you must make changes to your program to compete on an equal footing, that is costly and not everybody will be able to do that. That means even in the long run, Free Basics will only include a subset of the internet.\n\n<\/body>","next_sibling":[{"msid":51085142,"title":"After Vodafone notice, retrospective tax now back on government agenda","entity_type":"ARTICLE","link":"\/news\/after-vodafone-notice-retrospective-tax-now-back-on-government-agenda\/51085142","category_name":null,"category_name_seo":"telecomnews"}],"related_content":[],"msid":51085306,"entity_type":"ARTICLE","title":"Trai first regulator in world to focus on differential pricing: Barbara van Schewick","synopsis":"Barbara van Schewick is the director of the Stanford Law School\u2019s Center for Internet and Society. Her research and papers on network neutrality shaped the US Federal Communications Commission\u2019s work and rulings on the issue. In a Skype interview with Kim Arora, she spoke about the latest Trai decision and net neutrality around the world.","titleseo":"telecomnews\/trai-first-regulator-in-world-to-focus-on-differential-pricing-barbara-van-schewick","status":"ACTIVE","authors":[{"author_name":"Kim Arora","author_link":"\/author\/479213115\/kim-arora","author_image":"https:\/\/etimg.etb2bimg.com\/authorthumb\/479213115.cms?width=100&height=100&hostid=268","author_additional":{"thumbsize":false,"msid":479213115,"author_name":"Kim Arora","author_seo_name":"Kim-Arora","designation":"Editor","agency":false}}],"Alttitle":{"minfo":""},"artag":"TNN","artdate":"2016-02-22 08:23:18","lastupd":"2016-02-22 09:03:17","breadcrumbTags":["TRAI","industry","interview","regulator","Net neutrality","differential pricing\u2019"],"secinfo":{"seolocation":"telecomnews\/trai-first-regulator-in-world-to-focus-on-differential-pricing-barbara-van-schewick"}}" data-authors="[" kim arora"]" data-category-name="" data-category_id="" data-date="2016-02-22" data-index="article_1">
火车第一世界关注监管机构差别定价:芭芭拉·Schewick
芭芭拉·Schewick主任斯坦福法学院的网络与社会中心。她的研究和论文在网络中立型的美国联邦通信委员会的工作和裁决的问题。在Skype金Arora的采访中,她谈到了最新火车和世界各地的网络中立的决定。
芭芭拉·Schewick斯坦福大学法学院的主任是网络与社会中心。她的研究和论文在网络中立型的美国联邦通信委员会的工作和裁决的问题。在Skype面试与金正日Arora,她谈到了最近火车决定,网络中立世界各地。
你怎么拿印度的火车裁决和网络中立立法在世界其他地方吗?
监管机构年代世界各地正在考虑如何应对现在零利率。火车是第一个监管机构把注意力集中在问题的差别定价和免除应用程序从数据上限。因此,他们可以想出一个整体的这些实践方法。的原因我们已经看到其他监管机构在美国或欧盟采取个案决定是他们考虑的许多方面网络中立。他们专注于阻塞和技术规则的歧视。得零利率时,他们基本上用光了时间和(决定)通过案件处理它。
但是印度必须看那些其他问题之后。
是的。网络中立政权是不完整的,如果它只是地址零评级等经济形式的歧视,或者只有技术形式的歧视。简单的了解网络中立的核心是,我们不希望我们连接到互联网的公司控制在互联网上发生了什么。如果你只禁止一个练习,而不是其他的,你还没有真正保护开放的互联网。印度有什么伟大的决定是,它提供了一套完整的规则为不同类型的零评级。这些给市场肯定。
你认为火车决定让一个足够清晰区分微分和歧视性待遇的数据服务?
火车的决定比这更为微妙。它禁止有害形式的价格区别但允许形式不创建问题。实践按规定禁止零评级收费。我认为这是一个正确的决定,因为允许应用程序提供商支付不加增值税是允许他们获得竞争优势。这将会改变我们所知道的互联网。在互联网上,低成本让很多人开发新的应用程序和成为企业家。这是第一个大规则禁止的做法。第二个是任何类型的差别定价或豁免带宽限制基于内容或类型的内容。这适用于项目ISP zerorates几个应用程序和一个类类似的应用程序。第三类是ISP说我零评级项目开放给所有供应商在一定范畴,没有费……
这是Facebook的论点是免费的基础知识。
乍一看,这些产品看起来少了很多有害的。但是一旦你仔细看,这些项目为创新和言论自由创造真正的问题。(技术)要求是相当可观的。在t - mobile的狂欢计划,技术要求明确排除某些创新的协议。同样提供免费基础——大多数应用程序不立即满足其需求。内容或服务提供者,您可能要做技术改变。对互联网的一部分是如此令人激动的是,如果您的应用程序符合基本的因特网标准可以到达世界各地的人们以较低的成本。如果你必须更改你的程序平等竞争,这是昂贵的,并不是每个人都能这样做。这意味着即使在长远来看,自由基本只包括互联网的一个子集。
你怎么拿印度的火车裁决和网络中立立法在世界其他地方吗?
监管机构年代世界各地正在考虑如何应对现在零利率。火车是第一个监管机构把注意力集中在问题的差别定价和免除应用程序从数据上限。因此,他们可以想出一个整体的这些实践方法。的原因我们已经看到其他监管机构在美国或欧盟采取个案决定是他们考虑的许多方面网络中立。他们专注于阻塞和技术规则的歧视。得零利率时,他们基本上用光了时间和(决定)通过案件处理它。
但是印度必须看那些其他问题之后。
是的。网络中立政权是不完整的,如果它只是地址零评级等经济形式的歧视,或者只有技术形式的歧视。简单的了解网络中立的核心是,我们不希望我们连接到互联网的公司控制在互联网上发生了什么。如果你只禁止一个练习,而不是其他的,你还没有真正保护开放的互联网。印度有什么伟大的决定是,它提供了一套完整的规则为不同类型的零评级。这些给市场肯定。
你认为火车决定让一个足够清晰区分微分和歧视性待遇的数据服务?
火车的决定比这更为微妙。它禁止有害形式的价格区别但允许形式不创建问题。实践按规定禁止零评级收费。我认为这是一个正确的决定,因为允许应用程序提供商支付不加增值税是允许他们获得竞争优势。这将会改变我们所知道的互联网。在互联网上,低成本让很多人开发新的应用程序和成为企业家。这是第一个大规则禁止的做法。第二个是任何类型的差别定价或豁免带宽限制基于内容或类型的内容。这适用于项目ISP zerorates几个应用程序和一个类类似的应用程序。第三类是ISP说我零评级项目开放给所有供应商在一定范畴,没有费……
这是Facebook的论点是免费的基础知识。
乍一看,这些产品看起来少了很多有害的。但是一旦你仔细看,这些项目为创新和言论自由创造真正的问题。(技术)要求是相当可观的。在t - mobile的狂欢计划,技术要求明确排除某些创新的协议。同样提供免费基础——大多数应用程序不立即满足其需求。内容或服务提供者,您可能要做技术改变。对互联网的一部分是如此令人激动的是,如果您的应用程序符合基本的因特网标准可以到达世界各地的人们以较低的成本。如果你必须更改你的程序平等竞争,这是昂贵的,并不是每个人都能这样做。这意味着即使在长远来看,自由基本只包括互联网的一个子集。
评论
现在评论 阅读评论(1)所有评论
找到这个评论进攻?
下面选择你的理由并单击submit按钮。这将提醒我们的版主采取行动