Freedom of choice

Ensuring net neutrality is vital to providing a level playing field so all voices can be heard

Think of net neutrality from the point of view of this newspaper. This is a small, but we believe influential, voice in the world of Indian journalism. While many of our contemporaries kowtow to power, our separation of views and news remains intact and we have broken, and more importantly followed, major news stories for years. The 2G telecom scandal is just one example. That might make us many enemies, but it also ensures that our voice remains relevant in this day and age of highly corporatised media where the news is just an excuse to deliver advertising and the reader is just another person who they can sell to. Part of the process of ensuring our voice is heard is to ensure this newspaper continues to be delivered to every household that subscribes to it and not get bullied by newspaper vendors paid off by others. The latter has, however unfortunately happened, and not just for this newspaper. A couple of decades ago, the two largest newspapers in the Capital fought for control of the vendors; as a result, some refused to deliver one paper or another. Readers' choices be damned. That is, in essence, what some internet access firms would be able to do in the absence of net neutrality as accessing certain sites or certain services would be difficult because of the greed of some telecom companies.

Here's the thing: If you subscribe to a telecom service that provides you data, you are already paying for that data. But telecom companies would love to charge you differential rates for different services. Take messaging, for example, WhatsApp for better or for worse has changed the way we communicate over the past few years. But what if a telecom operator wanted to promote a messenger service started by the son of its promoter over the most popular service. It might say that to access WhatsApp you would need to pay five rupees extra per day. That might not seem like much, but that is a lot of money on an annualised basis. Similarly with content, what if one video streaming service wanted to squeeze out its rivals? They could pay a data provider to say that provide my service at a very high speed and degrade the quality of my rival's service. This will particularly hit start-ups. Again, what if there is a new social media service that is challenging an incumbent but thanks to the massive financial resources the incumbent has access to, it throttles the start-up. Does not sound fair, does it? But that can actually happen and many telecom companies which for years reaped windfall profits by charging usurious rates for data services and which have now stopped thanks to a new entrant would love to get their grubby hands on easy big money again. Not that the new entrant is a virtuous operator and it too may want a share of the unfair net pie as well. This is why the Indian government's stance on net neutrality is so important and why the United States' decision to look at abolishing net neutrality is a decision that attacks the freedom of users.

Can you imagine if another media house would want access to this newspaper's website severely restricted or slowed down to the point of being unviable? That can happen if the net is not kept free of unfair influence. What if the misinformation and lies spread by some websites run by malcontents were promoted over the truth? That too could happen. Information and freedom to access that information is too vital to be handed over to corporate interests. The net must always remain free.