Precampaign – SaveTheInternet.in revisisted

March 25th 2015: Sidin Vadukut and the plan for the Net Neutrality campaign

The Shreya Singh verdict from the Supreme Court was announced on the 24th of March 2015. It remains the foremost judgment for free speech on the Internet, even though some parts of it did not go our way. I say “our way” because some of us had spent years pushing back against Section 66A, and in court, I spent some time helping Senior Counsels understand the issues better. It was also, interestingly enough, a case which was being live tweeted by some lawyers, and including by J. Sai Deepak, who I had multiple conversations with about intermediary liability in court. I felt it was my case: I had almost become a petitioner, but instead, recommended my friend Faisal Farooqui to the Software Freedom Law Center, in my stead, because his organisation, Mouthshut, had received hundreds of takedown notices.

I remember walking out of Court number 1 of the Supreme Court after the verdict and feeling despondent. We may have had Section 66A (arrests for posts that were annoying, inconvenient or grossly offensive) taken down, but Section 79A (takedown of content upon notice) was only watered down, and Section 69A (secret blocking) remained protected. Raman and Apar were thrilled and talked some sense into me: a victory like this was unprecedented and significant. The judgment we got here today is one that can be used in free speech cases in the future.

That day (or the next) Sidin Vadukut, twitter star, author and columnist with Mint, and asked on twitter (now x) what the lessons were from the campaign. I had been preparing for the Net Neutrality campaign for almost 3 months, so I thought I’d write it down. Here’s the text of the email (with minor grammatical and typo errors fixed)

Subject: Learnings

Text: tldr: civil society orgs have it all wrong. need to get people involved.

*

Not specific to this case, but learnings from the last two years of watching how the policy space works

There are three levels of advocacy: politics, power and influence. This is in increasing order of perceived impact, decreasing order of credibility. Civil society members essentially focus on power: they create a position of power for themselves, and use perceived influence to push those in political positions to act. For example, an organization like ORF, SFLC or CIS will invite experts from across the globe to speak at small events they organize, invite people of importance in the audience, and through discussion, position themselves as a source of knowledge and connections with experts, to position themselves as experts. They will hold consultations, create research and white papers, and using their expertise, and connect with the media (who they invite for events), try and influence policy makers. They take the sniper approach: target the right people.

Two years ago, a week before the global IGF event in Baku, there were four events in Delhi in the space of a week. The same people, the same audience, the same conversations, the same panelists. They meet regularly. It’s an echo chamber.

In my opinion, this is useful, but likely to fail. Policy makers, given that they are likely to be influenced more by politicians, the industry, the press and people (social media), are likely to lean towards what impacts them the most: whether it is keeping their position of power, ensuring what keeps their paymasters happy, or what keeps the perception right. A few civil society organizations complaining will be seen as irritation, and can be ignored. These are people who will send them white papers, research reports and plead with them rationally about what is to be done.

What they can’t ignore, is people.

If you see how the judgment panned out, 66A was the only part that people cared about. They didn’t care censorship: about 79 and rules which allow takedowns and 69 which allows secret blocking. 66A was declared unconstitutional, 79 was written down, 69 was left as is. There are reasons, but the judges could have found reason to address 79 and 69 too. The massive public sentiment against 66A, reflected by reactions on social media and in the press put pressure on the government and the judiciary. Volume matters.

We worked on aggressively reporting Net Neutrality issues for three years. Nothing happened. Telcos spoke up about wanting to create interconnection charges and charge startups for allowing access to their apps. No one cared. It is when Airtel made VoIP costlier that there was a massive public outcry, there was pressure on TRAI to stop Airtel, pressure on Airtel to change the plan. Airtel brought people on board. We only explained to people why they were wrong, helped them understand. Now, when this goes to the TRAI for consultation, we are up against telecom operators and telco bodies who have been lobbying the TRAI for a year and a half. Telco CEO’s have met them several times, their execs meet the TRAI guys twice a week. TRAI’s policies often take the middle ground, and lean towards the telcos. On Net Neutrality, any middle ground is bad. It’s 8 powerful telcos versus people. My point is, while civil society organizations are taking a sniper approach, wouldn’t a shotgun approach be better? Once the TRAI opens up for submissions on net neutrality, if we can get 10,000 submissions from people like you and me, against 10 from telcos + telecom industry orgs, which way will the TRAI be forced to lean?

That’ll be an interesting experiment, and I’m already on it.

Now there’s some additional context needed here.

Firstly, the differential usage of power, politics and influence is something I learned in organisational dynamics in college in 2004, in terms of how groups and teams work in organisations. We had to do a group presentation on the usage of tactics in power, politics and influence, and their impact on recipients. Instead of applying it to a workplace situation, I took it to a public perception battle at the time that there was a split impending between the Ambani brothers and analysed the strategy behind their communication choices and the impact on how the media reported on it. The group went along with whatever I decided, and we titled it “Reliance and the Art of War”. This was not what the teacher had taught or expected, but I found out a year later that our presentation was being used in other colleges for teaching the concepts.

Secondly, I had being going for TRAI open house discussions since 2007: I knew how the consultation process works, how open house discussions were held, and having reported on, and participated in TRAI consultations, I knew the process. I knew that typically, there were 15-30 submissions to TRAI on most issues. The Internet, I hoped, could help us get to 10,000, so that the regulator understands what people want.

Thirdly, I had had this exact discussion around my frustration with how civil society organisations work, with Apar sometime in December. He had been working on a research project on Civil Society in India, and had interviewed me for it. As you can imagine, I was frustrated that Civil Society orgs didn’t do enough around issues of 66A, 79A and 69A even at that time. I didn’t realise then that they’re built for research, not advocacy, and that research is, in many cases, a weak form of advocacy.

This understanding helped me formulate some of the plans for the Internet Freedom Foundation later.

At that time, though, I didn’t know that there was mayhem just around the corner. The TRAI consultation would begin in a matter of days, not weeks.

26th October 2014: Hillhacks and getting Kiran Jonnalagadda interested in Net Neutrality

Kiran and Zainab were going to be in Delhi for a brief stay, after which they were going to Dharamshala for a break. Kiran had a particular fondness for Dharamshala, I knew. One time, in 2011 or 2012, he had dropped by home on his way back after spending an extended time (1 month or 6 months, I forget which in Dharamshala).

We sat then for a few hours in my rooftop office and I discussed with him my participation in a consultation on Mobile VAS, and he had explained the way the Internet works, with URLs, DNS’ (Nameservers), and I fleshed out on a whiteboard, a corresponding model for liberating VAS from the clutches of telecom operators, and essentially freeing numbers (like STAR TV’s 7827) from the control of telecom operators. At that time, SMS was big: Times Internet had 8888 and would later launch a service called FOLLO (which I thought was brilliant). That shortcode, though, was an identity on SMS, like a website was an identity on the web, except that you licensed it from the telecom operator and could never own it.

In the VAS industry there was folklore of how once a telecom operator was refusing to renew the license for a companys short code, and Ajay Vaishnavi, who later became head of mobile for Times Internet, went from circle to circle, and convinced circle CEOs to renew that short code. Eventually they gave in, but telecom operators drove a hard bargain, and they controlled your existence on SMS. I presented this idea to the TRAI later at a public consultation in Bangalore, but the TRAI never

The bus for Dharamshala leaves from Majnu Ka Tila in Delhi, near my house, so I asked Kiran if he could drop by on his way to the bus stop, and I could explain the Net Neutrality problem that I saw coming ahead of us. If we did anything like a campaign, we would need tech to run an email service, and I needed Kiran on board. Except that Kiran didn’t make it: he got late leaving from Karim’s house (Karim is not his actual name), where he was staying, and couldn’t stop by. “Why don’t you come to Dharamshala for Hillhacks? Just take a bus, and I’ll tell you how to get there.” Next day was Diwali, and I knew Delhi would be unlivable for a week or so, so I thought it over and told Kiran the next morning that I’m be coming for Hillhacks. I booked a bus for 7PM, packed and boarded a largely empty bus. That night, for as long as I had a mobile Internet connectivity, I saw AQI readings rise progressively. It was Diwali night, the roads were empty, and the bus reached at 5AM instead of the expected 7AM. The bus also dropped me away from where Kiran had suggested I disembark, so I walked all the way down, trying to find “Ghoomakkad” where Hillhacks was being held. When I did reach there finally, dodging a few strays on the road, only one person was awake. I was pointed to a dorm — a large hall with wooden beds and mattresses on them, and people fast asleep. I found an empty bed and crashed.

Hillhacks is/was a makers community, and this was the first one, called Hillhacks 0. There I met Akiba from Japan, who had managed to bring in sacks of solar panels to teach kids how to solder and build solar powered items, like lamps.

Sva appeared to be running the show, and there were a few people from Germany. People had been here for a couple of weeks, and had spent time teaching kids in schools tech. The community had pooled in money, some more some less, and there was a minimum charge. Food was made by the community. Someone had brought and set up a 3D printer. Sva, I think was teaching people how to print t-shirts. This was a makers space, a geek-paradise, the kind that Kiran was connected to and I was fascinated (and daunted) by.

In the morning, I told Kiran a little about the Net Neutrality issues and what we were facing. He stopped me short and suggested that I do a talk on it. There was going to be an unconference the next day, and there were open slots: all you had to do was put up a post-it for a time-slot that was available. I blocked an afternoon slot. In the evening we walked to McLeodGanj for some Korean food. I came back and crashed.

The next day, Kiran convinced me to do the Triund trek – we went halfway up, to magic view. Somewhere along the way I found enough connectivity for a silly tweet.

The Unconference was the next day. There was a projector, a screen, in an open area covered by a tent of some kind, and carpets on the floor.

We sat on the carpets and people made presentations – I don’t remember most of them – but Kiran gave a talk about open source and platformisation. He pointed out that “We seem to have come to a unilateral understanding of tech, that it is industry led. Different ways of looking at development. “

In the afternoon, on the 26th, I shared the issues with Zero Rating. There weren’t many people there – maybe a maximum of 10-15 – and most people didn’t quite understand the implications of these issues for business. They were hackers not startups. I remember getting into a debate with someone from Germany who didn’t quite understand why someone shouldn’t be able to subsidise data costs for their apps and websites, and I remember struggling to respond to this at the time. This was my first time talking in public about Net Neutrality, albeit with a small audience.

Some of it, it seems, landed.

I remember staying till the end of Hillhacks in 2014, as plans were made for the next hillhacks, and everyone went their own way. I returned to smoke-filled Delhi.

P.s.: I’ll let Kiran detail his version of events here

October 9, 2014: The Internet.org Press Conference with Mark Zuckerberg

One late evening, I got a text from the CEO of a Bangalore based startup, telling me that he’ll see me in Delhi for the Zuckerberg visit. I didn’t know what he was talking about, so I called him up to find out what was going on. Everyone will be there, he told me, for the Internet.org summit, so he expected that I would be there too. Internet.org had been announced in May 2015, and was expected to launch in India.

I mailed Carson Dalton, head of corporate communications at Facebook, and Ankhi Das, head of Public Policy, asking if I could attend and interview Zuckerberg. Carson responded almost immediately saying that I’ll get an invite soon, and he’ll get back regarding the interview the next day if they have slots. A few days later, he called, saying that there will be a press conference. Send me your questions, he said, and we’ll pull one out of a fishbowl. There were going to be many journalists there, so it’s only fair that the selection be random, he indicated. The next day, I sent 2 questions across:

“Doesn’t creating a consumer data pricing differentiation between those companies which are on board at internet.org and those which are not, disadvantage those startups who can’t afford to pay telecom operators for subsidising data? India is a very price sensitive market.

India is a country with multiple languages and scripts, and while Facebook is enabling reading in many of those languages, why hasn’t the company enabled input mechanisms in Indic when someone changes their language interface to, say, hindi?”

Everyone from India’s startup ecosystem was there for the launch, at the Taj Palace hotel in Delhi. There appeared to be a clear separation in the hall: the journalists were on the left side of the stage, while the startup founders were on the right. I waded through the crowds towards the right, and made small talk with some founders.

I remember some banter with Hitesh Oberoi, the now CEO of Info Edge (Naukri), before finding my place in the journalists section, sitting next to Shilpa Kannan, then working with BBC India. Zuckerberg announced Internet.org and walked off stage. As we made our way to the press conference, held at an adjacent room, I heard murmurs of discontent from founders and senior executives of tech firms, some of whom flew to Delhi, and expected to be granted an exclusive audience with Zuckerberg, or at least an interaction as a group.

At the press conference, around 30 of us, journalists, were waiting for Zuckerberg. At least we would get an interaction. He walked in. I don’t clearly remember what he said, but I noticed Carson with a printout in hand, pointing out journalists who would be allowed to ask a question. There was no fishbowl. The questions were, to my mind, insipid: why are you launching free Internet instead of funding toilets? What would you do if you were to start up again? I sat with my laptop open, waiting for my turn, which never came.

As I exited the press conference, I noticed Madhavan Narayanan, then with Hindustan Times, and Kashish Gupta of NDTV, angry with Dalton about not being given an opportunity to ask a question. I wasn’t as perturbed. Sitting at the press conference, I had realised that my turn would never come. I knew what to do.

A few weeks before this, Jeff Bezos was to be in India. I had been sounded-out about an interview with Bezos, and had been preparing for it. Bezos had done the rounds in India, given several interviews to mainstream publications, as I awaited my opportunity for when he visited Delhi. The day before the interview, someone from the PR agency representing Amazon called me up, and suggested that I ask him primarily about how his India trip was, and what kind of food he had tried. The kind of idiotic fluff you would never expect from me. I told them that they shouldn’t be so presumptuous that they can tell me what to ask. A few hours later I got an email saying that Bezos has been called into an important government meeting and won’t be able to do the interview.

Towards the end of the press conference with Zuckerberg, I had a moment of realization: as a journalist, my job is to ask the question, it is theirs to answer. Just because they haven’t chosen to answer my question doesn’t mean the question isn’t important.

Sometimes the questions are more important than the answers.

So instead of writing about what Zuckerberg said at the launch of Internet.org, I wrote about what he didn’t say, and posed the questions publicly:

– Before a telecom operator gets a roster of services to choose from, how would core services be selected for the Internet.org app?

– Under what circumstances are services going to be rejected for Internet.org?

– Who exactly pays telecom operators for free Internet access and how are the rates paid to telcos decided?

– Are the rates that telecom operators being paid for consumer access to Internet.org going to be higher or lower than market rates, and will there be public disclosures, so these can be compared with pay-per-use access rates in each country?

– Why is Facebook (via Internet.org) distorting the market by splitting the Internet into services that are free and paid for consumer access?

It was their problem now.

September 15, 2014: On the sidelines of Sundar Pichai’s visit to India

Sundar Pichai, then Google’s Senior VP, was in India for the launch of Android One in India. Prashant Singh, then with Spice Labs, and really the heart and soul of Mobile Monday Delhi, pinged me to ask if I’m going to be at a NASSCOM event with Sundar Pichai in Gurgaon.

Prashant and I used to organise Mobile Monday Delhi together, before I got busy with MediaNama, and he ran it till he eventually wound it up. He remains a close friend, and one of the most insightful people I know: unafraid to give a divergent point of view, share an insight that makes you think of things differently, and challenge your thinking.

Uninvited, I landed up at the Leela Ambience hotel, and we spent our evening standing at the back (the hall was full) listening to Pichai. On the way back, Prashant hitched a ride with me to the metro station at Jhandewalan (a direct metro to Noida), so we had a good hour to chat in peak hour traffic between Gurgaon and Delhi.

I took this as an opportunity to bounce my concerns about revenue share and the planned Internet.org with him. I wanted to understand what he thought about this, as someone who builds mobile apps. Facebook already has Facebook Zero in India, and Whatsapp had promotional deals with telecom operators. He was a little dismissive about it at that time, didn’t think of this as a significant concern.

If I can pay and get more downloads for my app by advertising, I remember him asking, what’s wrong with paying and getting more downloads for my app because users won’t be charged data charges fee for using it? Good for the developer, isn’t it?

I asked Prashant today (17th April 2025, since this post is back-dated) about what he remembered about this discussion, and he says this is quite accurate. Also, he remembers making the point that the telecom operators should offer this to everyone: “whoever wants to buy data should be allowed to buy…unless they are violating any term of resale say drugs etc.”

Prashant was acutely aware of the challenges that VAS companies (which provided ringtones, ringbacktones etc on mobile) faced with telecom operators. Telcos had someone called a Supply Chain Manager, who used to renegotiate revenue share with VAS companies, and their focus each year was to increase the percentage that telecom operators faced.

I remember Viren Popli, a friend who was then Head of Digital at STAR TV, telling me once that he had met one telecom operator for a deal about KBC (Kaun Banega Crorepati), and had discussed a rate. When he went to another telecom operator, trying to negotiate a better deal, he found that they already had information on rates from the other telco. It’s a cartel, he always said.

My other argument was that once you start a revenue share arrangement with a telecom operator, it will be bait-and-switch. Facebook, I pointed out, had already done this with brand pages on its platform: we first paid for making pages with fans, and one day, Facebook flipped the switch and forced people to pay to reach the same users who had signed up to view their updates.

Prashant didn’t seem to be convinced about all this: the entire situation was perhaps too hypothetical for him, whereas I had been in the thick of debates already.

However, this conversation was important because it foreshadows debates that we had during the Net Neutrality campaign. For me, this debate with Prashant was useful preparation.

August 5, 2014: The TRAI Seminar on OTT Regulation

A few days before this, someone had messaged me about a seminar that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India was planning. A day before, I was forwarded an email about a discussion that the TRAI had planned, covering “Regulatory issues for online services” in Delhi.

The discussion was to have 3 focus areas, according to a notice on TRAI’s website:

Session 1: New Developments in OTT
Session 2: Impact of OTT on TSPs and their counter measures
Session 3: Legal and Regulatory framework for OTT

I had been writing about Net Neutrality concerns, in terms of what telecom operators had demanded, and wanted to figure out a way to attend the session. I ended up landing up at the PHD Chambers of Commerce, where the discussion was being held, and the TRAI folks at the counter thankfully allowed me in. I had attended several TRAI open house discussions in the past, and had been reporting on them for a few years, so they let me in because they knew me.

Regulation of OTT services was a part of the five point agenda pushed by the telecom lobbying group COAI in August, after the NDA government came to power in May.

That this was a telecom agenda was not surprising. However, for the TRAI to pick this up this quickly was worrying for me. I understood the concerns that they had, and had expected this: on an almost 14 hour layover at Dubai (the cheapest flight I could get), I had penned down my thoughts on what would happen after Whatsapp voice became a reality.

The open house began with an angry Rahul Khullar ranting about Telecom CEO’s speaking with him about the problems that OTT’s (Online apps) will cause for their business, saying that he wants nothing to do with this, and it’s better to have a seminar where these issues can be aired, rather than do a pre-consultation (and subsequently a consultation followed by a regulation).

(Was Rahul Khullar ever not angry? In the 8 years that I had been attending TRAI open houses, this was the first Chairman that had seen actually interrupting people, and at times berating them for their comments and questions. He had done that at a discussion at the India International Centre earlier that year, and I found it most distasteful and disconcerting.)

I sat on the upper tier at the fairly large auditorium: I found a charging point, and around me I remember some folks from the Centre for Internet and Society, and Raman Jit Singh Chima from Google. I type really fast, and this looked like this was very serious for the Internet industry, so I took furious notes on my laptop.

Khullar said, and I quote:

“Robert Ravi (of the TRAI) indicated, that the OTT applications hurt Telcos the world over. Voice and messages is obvious for telcos, and video is another stream that is hurting them. The question that is, what did the rest of the world do? the rest of the world looked on. Tech is good for consumers, tough luck. If telcos aren’t able to recover investments. On the other side, the telcos made the arguments that are we just pipe providers? I don’t know the answer.”

I remember getting quite angered by some of the comments, especially those from Reliance Communications. After a session, I raised my hand. I didn’t often speak at TRAI events, but this time I was really riled up, and called the TRAI out for even considering this discussion, given that any kind of revenue share would be a net neutrality violation, and would be a freedom of speech issue.

I remember how I struggled to justify my point then, but it was a start of something: I had to figure out why I felt this was bad for the Internet, terrible for Indian startups, and why it was even a net neutrality issue. Raman pushed back on a panel he was on.

Subho Ray was particularly articulate in response.

I wrote 8 articles about that day, a few days later on August 8th, and it remains the only public documentation of the proceedings.

March 2014: Early warnings from the Mobile World Congress

At the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, the telecom operators use the stage to highlight their regulatory and business agendas for the year. In 2014, like every other year, telecom operators took to stage to complain about the impact of the Internet on business, especially in terms of concerns of voice based apps.

There were several voice apps around, especially in India, including and Nimbuzz, Viber, but we knew the world would change once Whatsapp launched voice. I ended up speaking with Neeraj Arora, WhatsApp’s head of business development, about Net Neutrality.

Most companies don’t let their senior execs speak with me because I end up asking challenging questions, but Neeraj was an old friend, and he could take his own decisions on whom to speak with. He had gone to college with my cousin Vivek. When we met for the first time at TiEcon in the late 2000’s, he had been with Times Internet then, as a part of their M&A team.

He then joined Google, and eventually moved with Google to Mountain View, once they wound up their product management and M&A teams in India around 2010. Neeraj had met the WhatsApp team in San Francisco, loved their approach, focus and vision, and ended up pitching a job for himself to them: as their first business hire. He handled telecom deals, and I remember him complaining once about Indian telecom operators, that they’re trying to fight WhatsApp, whereas a South-East Asian telecom operator had seen the writing on the wall, and told him – help me kill my current business model faster.

WhatsApp had done telecom deals in India, it worked for both WhatsApp and the telecom operators: Whatsapp was a primary reason for users to sign up for Internet packages. However, we knew what was coming. I spoke with Neeraj a day after WhatsApp announced it was launching voice, and I had some hard questions for him, that helped inform the Net Neutrality Campaign:

MediaNama: How does this change with voice, because it’s one thing to drive data…?
Arora: That is a better question. I would say, if you go back two and half years, when we started doing carrier deals, and this question was asked in every meeting: You want to work with us, we want to work with you, but it cannibalizes SMS. And now I don’t even get that question anymore. I’m predicting that the same thing will happen with voice. We’ll launch voice, and hopefully users will like it…I hope they like it. And, if they end up using our voice product, it drives data, and it will be the same curve again. First carriers will say…

MediaNama: But it’s a completely different thing when you’re impacting around 8% of revenue (SMS) versus when you’re impacting 60-70-80% of revenues, right? The danger they feel is greater.
Arora: To be very frank, I’ve not talked to carriers after this announcement*. I will see how they feel. Jan on stage said yesterday that the future is about data, and there were two more carriers on stage on the same keynote with him, and they also said it’s about data. (If) it’s all about bits and bytes and not about messages and calls, then we’re aligned. This phase from when VoIP is not commonly used to a phase when hopefully everything flows through the data pipe…I’m sure there are lots of smart carriers who are thinking of that transition and planning for it, and pricing correctly. Why does India have such a low data penetration? It should be like 10x of what it is today, and I think we can help that. Google, Facebook, Twitter, these companies provide services that can speed up data penetration, and if we can work with carriers to do it, why not?

MediaNama: So what are the things you hear from carriers in India when it comes to messaging conversations? What are the challenges you face with telco partnerships in India?
I think we’re doing fine. There are no challenges any more. I think the first was the biggest barrier because they didn’t know what will come out of it, and the first one we did with RCOM, has done exceptionally well, and that’s why we launched the second one with Tata (Docomo). There are a couple more in the pipeline. On the messaging side, I see no challenges. People get it, the carriers get it now. Also, there’s a very strong pull from the end users. Both of us serve the same users, and we have to listen to what the users want. We are providing a service, and they’re providing the data underlying it. If we go to the market combined and provide something which is better than what users can get if they just take some data connection off the shelf. Or, if people ask why do I need data connection, and they can say that you need it because we’ll give you unlimited Whatsapp, it makes a lot of sense.

Voice, we’ll see how it goes.

On the way back from MWC, I had a 14-16 hour layover at Dubai Airport. With nothing much to do, I got time to think about the impact of WhatsApp voice on telecom.

August 2012: An early meeting with Airtel

This was unexpected: Airtel reached out to me for an interview with K. Srinivas, its President of B2C businesses. The name was familiar, and looked up MediaNama to land upon something I had written a couple of years prior: Airtel Broadband doesn’t want to be a dumb pipe. This was a critique in response to a statement that Srinivas, then the President of Telemedia at Airtel had given to the Hindu Businessline, where he said that “Within the next 6-12 months, we are working on moving a dumb pipe to an enriched pipe.” I had pointed out how ISPs can be a gateway to the Internet, in a manner that AOL had been one in the US, but also that there’s a dark side to it: that an ‘enriched’ or ‘smart’ pipe cab impact the neutrality of access to the Internet. I was reminded of my experience with Airtel Live, which was an early mechanism for mobile Internet Access, where access to some services was blocked. I wrote then, that

“Telecom operators in India, including Airtel, Videocon, MTS and Tata Docomo have, over the last six months, offered access to certain sites for free, as promotional initiatives, providing preferential treatment to a few sites over others, in terms of cost of access. On Broadband, Airtel Broadband did upgrade the access speed for its users for YouTube during the Indian Premier League. Verizon and Google recently announced a joint proposal to allow content companies looking to deliver bandwidth heavy services, through a separate set of pipes, for a fee.”

This was tricky for me: When I had pointed out what MTS was doing in terms of giving access to some sites for no data cost was a net neutrality concern, Sumant Srivatsan, a friend in Advertising had said that Net Neutrality was about speed of access, not cost. I had looked up Wikipedia about Net Neutrality (the concept was new to me), and it appeared that the idea of cost of access was not seen globally as a net neutrality concern. However, for me, the speed of access really didn’t matter: mobile Internet was expensive, and access was slow on 2G/Edge anyway. The cost mattered in India.

I remember Srinivas being fairly open and pleasant when I met him. In an interview that spanned across connectivity, data pricing, carrier billing, digital money and app stores, when I asked him about Net Neutrality concerns, he laughed and said “I knew you were going to ask about this.”

Excerpts from the interview:

“The notion is that everything on the Internet is free. So Google doesn’t charge the customer, Facebook is free. There are billions of dollars of investment going in. This is not just an Indian issue, it’s a global issue. We’d not even rolled out 3G, and 4G has dawned upon us. The industry, and the costs of rolling out, building a backhaul. Backhaul costs in India are backbreaking. In South Bombay, if you want to put up a kilometer of fibre, the Right of Way cost is almost about Rs 1 crore. Show me one business model, with the data consumption going up, that supports these continuously increasing costs. The data ARPU the world over is flat to declining. The notion that telecom operators are making tons of money is incorrect. Show me one company in India or anywhere in the world that is thriving on data. You need to have the right kind of model. There is no free lunch.”

MediaNama: But as a customer, I’m paying you for this access.
Srinivas: If you’re paying me 100 bucks for 1 gb, but beyond that you’ll have to pay.

MediaNama: So don’t charge me Rs 98 for 2gb.
Srinivas: At some stage, Rs 98 will become Rs 200 for 2gb.I’m not getting into whether this pricing is right or wrong. Even on voice, the current rates are not sustainable. Every single operator is sitting on huge sets of investment. This pricing for data or voice is not sustainable. Lets build the right business model. On one side you compete, and on another you collaborate. The point you were making (in your post) was that I need Google and Google needs me. Very true. The issue is that the amount of investment that goes behind. Tell me one product or commodity in the country which has not changed its price upwards in the last 10 years, or even the last one year. You’ve seen everybody drop prices. I pay in dollars for all my investments and I earn in paise. There is significant investment.

MediaNama: How would you respond to a situation in 2013, where Reliance comes in and drops prices?
Srinivas: We have dealt with that more than adequately. I don’t want to talk about what we will do, and we’ve dealt with it in the past, and there is a solution going forward. If there is one company which can survive and sustain, and there are bigger issues in the market.

One other thing I wanted to talk to you about was that a lot of guys actually believe that speed doesn’t cost money. It’s completely untrue.