3. Innovation and infrastructure have both to be promoted simultaneously and neither can spread without the other.

4. The primary goals of public policy in the context of Net Neutrality should be directed towards achievement of developmental aims of the country by facilitating “Affordable Broadband”, “Quality Broadband” and “Universal
Broadband” for its citizens.

5. User rights on the Internet need to be ensured so that TSPs/ISPs do not restrict the ability of the user to send, receive, display, use, post any legal content, application or service on the Internet, or restrict any kind of lawful
Internet activity or use.

6. OTT application services have been traditionally available in the market for some time and such services enhance consumer welfare and increase productivity.

8. Specific OTT communication services dealing with messaging should not be interfered with through regulatory instruments.

9. In case of VoIP OTT communication services, there exists a regulatory arbitrage wherein such services also bypass the existing licensing and regulatory regime creating a non-level playing field between TSPs and OTT providers both competing for the same service provision.

10. The existence of a pricing arbitrage in VoIP OTT communication services requires a graduated and calibrated public policy response. In case of OTT VoIP international calling services, a liberal approach may be adopted.

11. For OTT application services, there is no case for prescribing regulatory oversight similar to conventional communication services.

12. Legitimate traffic management practices may be allowed but should be “tested” against the core principles of Net Neutrality.

General criteria against which these practices can be tested are as follows:
a) TSPs/ISPs should make adequate disclosures to the users about their traffic management policies, tools and intervention practices to maintain transparency and allow users to make informed choices

b) Unreasonable traffic management, exploitative or anti-competitive in nature may not be permitted.

c) In general, for legitimate network management, application-agnostic  control may be used. However, application-specific control withinthe “Internet traffic” class may not be permitted.

d) Traffic management practices like DPI should not be used for unlawful  access to the type and contents of an application in an IP packet.

e) Improper (Paid or otherwise) Prioritization may not be permitted

f) Application-agnostic congestion control being a legitimate requirement cannot be considered to be against Net Neutrality. However application-specific control within the “Internet traffic” class may be
against the principles of Net Neutrality.

g) Mechanism to minimize frivolous complaints will be desirable.

13. Traffic management is complex and specialized field and enough capacity building is needed before undertaking such an exercise.

14. CDN is an arrangement of management of content as a business strategy and does not interfere with others business. Making available one provider’s CDN to others on commercial terms is a normal commercial activity. It should at best be covered under law related to unfair trade practice.

15. Managed services are a necessary requirement for businesses and enterprises, and suitable exceptions may be made for the treatment of such services in the Net Neutrality context.

16. This Committee refrains from making any specific recommendation on search-neutrality, however, flags this issue as a concern for public policy.

17. Tariff plans offered by TSPs/ISPs must conform to the principles of Net Neutrality set forth in guidelines issued by the Government as Licensor. TRAI may examine the tariff filings made by TSPs/ISPs to determine whether the tariff plan conforms to the principles of Net Neutrality.

18. Content and application providers cannot be permitted to act as gatekeepers and use network operations to extract value in violation of core principles of Net Neutrality, even if it is for an ostensible public purpose.

19. A clause, requiring licensee to adhere to the core principles of Net Neutrality, as specified by guidelines issued by the licensor from time to time, should be incorporated in the license conditions of TSP/ISPs. The guidelines can describe the principles and conditions of Net Neutrality in detail and provide applicable criteria to test any violation of the principles of Net Neutrality.

20. New legislation, whenever planned for replacing the existing legal framework, must incorporate principles of Net Neutrality. Till such time as an appropriate legal framework is enacted, interim provisions enforceable through licensing conditions as suggested by the Committee may be the way forward.

21. National security is paramount, regardless of treatment of Net Neutrality. The measures to ensure compliance of security related requirements from OTT service providers, need to be worked out through inter-ministerial
consultations.

22. Suggested enforcement process is as follows: (i) Core principles of Net Neutrality may be made part of License conditions and the Licensor may issue guidelines from time to time as learning process matures.

23. Enforcing Net Neutrality principle is a new idea and may throw up many questions and problems as we go along. For this purpose, an oversight process may be set up by the government to advise on policies and processes, review guidelines, reporting and auditing procedures and enforcement of rules.

24. Capacity building through training, institution building and active engagement with stakeholders is essential. In order to deal with the complexities of the new digital world, a think-tank with best talent may also be set up.