Round 128 Indian startup founders signed a letter petitioning the federal government in assist of Internet Neutrality, arguing that “any transfer in direction of overregulation of web Providers or Over-The-Prime (OTT) providers, might have discriminatory penalties.”

The checklist of founders consists of the likes of Zerodha’s Nithin Kamath, Paytm’s Vijay Shekhar Sharma, PhonePe’s Sameer Nigam, Bharat Matrimony’s Murugavel Janakiraman, Razorpay’s Harshil Mathur in addition to and Practo’s Shashank ND Singh.

Others who signed the letter embody Webveda’s Ankur Warikoo, ixigo’s Aloke Bajpai, Rapido’s Rishikesh SR and MapmyIndia’s Rohan Verma amongst others.

In a letter addressed to PD Vaghela, Chairman of TRAI and Akhilesh Kumar Trivedi, advisor (Networks, Spectrum and Licensing), TRAI, the executives mentioned, “”TRAI should warning in opposition to any demand to cost community charges from massive visitors turbines and forestall TSPs from but once more making an attempt to have interaction in such rent-seeking behaviour, and never impose telecommunications licensing frameworks on Web corporations.”

In context of the current calls for of the TSPs and its implications for the financial system, we urge TRAI to additional strengthen the ideas outlined within the 2016 Laws, moderately than dilute it, the Startups mentioned.

TRAI had in February, 2016, issued the Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Knowledge Companies Laws, 2016, by which it restricted the charging discriminatory costs to customers based mostly on the content material. This regulation noticed the assist of a number of start-ups in 2016, who requested for TRAI’s continued assist for Internet Neutrality.

The letter cautioned the physique in opposition to any transfer in direction of “overregulation of Web Providers being described as OTT providers, which can have discriminatory penalties.”It mentioned that web providers are already regulated below the IT Act, 2000 and that they have been “principally in opposition to” bringing such providers below the identical or related regulatory framework as telecom service suppliers.

Whereas making a case for distinction from telecom corporations, the founders mentioned that the prompt type of regulatory framework, the place they basically have the ability to tilt the taking part in discipline to favour one web site/ utility/ service or one other, will inevitably result in “discrimination, non-level taking part in discipline, entry limitations, and elevated compliance burden.”

It added that these obligations will favour massive multinational conglomerates who can afford to adapt to such rules.

“Giving TSPs the important thing to have the ability to management these components will very seemingly affect the thriving Indian start-up ecosystem,” the letter mentioned.

Additional, it mentioned the demand to impose licensing and value obligations on OTTs is instantly at odds with the Authorities of India’s Startup India initiative.

“These initiatives aren’t full with out the assist for Internet Neutrality – a precept that assures telecom or web service suppliers don’t discriminate for or in opposition to on-line apps and providers, on the idea of availability, pace, or value of entry, leaving that option to the top person alone,” the letter mentioned.

Telecom service suppliers Airtel, Jio and Vi have requested the telecom regulator TRAI to permit them to cost startups a “community utilization payment” based mostly on visitors and/or variety of customers. The startups alleged that they’re pushing for some sorts of on-line apps to be introduced below the identical licensing regime, as per a observe that was circulated to the startups.

Nonetheless, Lt Gen Dr SP Kochhar, DG, COAI had mentioned in COAI’s submission {that a} supportive framework must be offered to nurture startups, MSMEs and small enterprises within the OTT ecosystem.

“COAI has additionally proposed that such smaller gamers with low utilization needn’t be required to pay the utilization cost. On this manner, innovation and entrepreneurship wouldn’t get affected,” he mentioned.

“We imagine that the premise largely relied upon within the session paper in addition to among the feedback submitted by TSPs (telecom service suppliers) – i.e. web providers supposedly being direct substitutes of conventional providers and thus stealing the latter’s revenues and income in addition to the existence of a market failure, in which there’s an absence of sufficient monetary incentive for giant TSPs to spend money on infrastructure as a result of lack of compensation – is unfounded,” the letter learn.

It went on to induce TRAI to know that the regulatory distinction between telecom corporations and web functions/ service suppliers don’t requisite an intervention, particularly as a result of there are inherent structural and useful variations between the 2.

“The web shouldn’t be a easy two sided market. Ours are web providers which customers demand, and are delivered through a posh community of networks known as the web, and never worth added providers that are delivered by telecom operators,” the founders mentioned within the letter.