1 hour ago
Senior executives from top telecom operators called for a relook at the net neutrality framework and urged flexibility in network slicing to enable monetisation of existing 5G network capabilities, even as proponents of net neutrality argued against disrupting established principles.
Speaking during a panel discussion at the pre-event business day of the India Mobile Congress on Wednesday, Rahul Vatts, group chief regulatory officer at Airtel, said, “I think there is a real cause for us to sit down as stakeholders to understand, do we need to relook at principles? Do we need to have a larger debate in terms of larger principles of the regulatory landscape?... rather than to just carry in our head that there is a net neutrality principle. There are regimes where there is no net neutrality, are they any less in terms of anything? No. Have they not followed open internet?”
Notably, Airtel rolled out 5G slicing called Fastlane for its postpaid customers earlier this year, drawing concerns about net neutrality. Net neutrality principles were issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in July 2018, with subsequent amendments to the Unified Licence for telecom service providers (TSPs) and the internet service provider licence. These principles ensure equal access to the internet without speed changes, regardless of content, user, platform, application or device.
Vatts highlighted that the recent rollout enabled a differentiated experience for the operator’s postpaid base while enhancing the network overall.
He added, “There are different models that are being experimented…A lot of people are trying slicing for enterprise business applications. (For) All the business users, why should they not be on a separate slice for a video calling facility or even for using applications of connectivity. That is something we have to now try and explore.”
Along similar lines, Ben Wreschner, government relations director at Vodafone Group, called for flexibility for operators: “We have an open internet regime in Europe that is the net neutrality regime, which, in my opinion, assumes that anytime we are trying to be dynamic or being differentiated, we are actually discriminating. In my view, that is a legacy mindset from days of 3G where connectivity and content were the same thing. Actually they are not the same thing.”
He added, “If we are allowed to be dynamic in how we (operators) manage our networks and if there is an acceptance that connectivity is not a single homogeneous item but is actually a series of differentiated products…If dynamism and differentiation are allowed to be unleashed then operators around the world will be much better placed to unlock the value of 5G.”
Vatts added that telecom operators have continuously invested $6.5 billion over the last five years, but only 40 per cent of sites in the country are connected to fibre, necessitating continued investments. “We have to monetise 5G technology. We are talking about 6G, if we don't get the juice out of it (5G) it will be very difficult for the operators to say I am ready to invest into the next paradigm… Sub-3 dollar average revenue per user (arpu) is not an arpu given the investments that we have lined up,” he said.
However, both Vatts and Wreschner stated their support for an open internet. “Why would I want to disrupt my subscribers' experience… technology today allows you to create a differentiated slice where you can give a differentiated experience not at the cost of an existing subscriber,” Vatts added.
Countering the pitch for differentiation, Nikhil Pahwa, founder of MediaNama, said, “Creating these slices actually slices businesses into typologies. You need founders running the apps and not go and ask for permission to be on particular slices. What neutrality enables is permissionless innovation.”
Highlighting personalised agents already disrupting the application economy, Pahwa added, “We are headed for troubled waters, you don't want to bring another variable into play for the internet economy in this country.”
