India’s telecom watchdog on Tuesday directed service providers to stop all promotional calls from unregistered callers and blacklist them as it looks to tackle a surge in spam and phishing calls that has seen people lose millions of rupees.

The government has been looking to clamp down on the spike in such calls including those where scammers pose as representatives of firms like FedEx and Blue Dart and extract sensitive financial information by sending phishing links in the pretext of retrieving lost packages.

“All promotional voice calls from the unregistered senders/unregistered telemarketer using Telecom Resources shall be stopped immediately,” the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India said in a statement shared by the government.

Such unregistered callers will be blacklisted for up to two years, the statement said, adding that telecom service providers would need to submit updates on action taken on scam callers on the 1st and 16th of every month.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

The story so far: Endeavouring to address issues related to coverage and quality inside buildings and civic facilities (such as airports and bus stations), the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) floated a consultation paper on September 27, proposing a rating system to assess network operability in the premises, to nudge property owners to “come forward and implement solutions to provide seamless digital connectivity in buildings.”

The regulator is seeking comments on the proposal until November 10 and counter-comments until November 24.

What are objectives of the proposed move?

The chief objective is to improve connectivity inside enclosed quarters. To attain this, TRAI recognises the need for an ecosystem that would create a “competitive environment” among property managers to provide the best quality of digital connectivity. According to the regulator, ratings would impact the commercial decisions of prospective buyers and tenants, allowing them to make an informed choice— thereby bettering connectivity in these spaces.

The regulator also observes that unlike street level wireless coverage, thorough connectivity in buildings entails the collaboration of service providers with local administrators and/or property managers. Thus, a TSP would not be able to deliver the desired quality all alone. “Apart from the permissions, the property managers and TSPs need to collaborate right from the design stage to co-design and co-create digital connectivity infrastructure in new buildings or buildings under renovation,” the paper reads. Thus, the regulator notes the necessity to combine these entities, tools and marketplaces under one platform, to aid in speeding up the roll-out of digital connectivity infrastructure and carry out capacity augmentation whenever required. Further, this will also serve to identify and remove obstacles to facilitate smooth functioning of the market for benefit of all end users and stakeholders.

As TRAI notes, the exponential rise in demand for digital services requires frequent augmentation of network capacity. Even though issues related to digital connectivity infrastructure can be addressed when the infrastructure is initially laid, however, they reappear at each instance of expansion, upgradation or any related activity. Thus, issues have to be dealt with during the entire lifecycle and not only at the initial phase. Hence ratings, once accorded, would require renewal.

What does the rating framework look like?

A star rating, between 1 to 5, would be accorded, ascertaining the scope and level of digital connectivity in the premises. The certification may be used for all further legal and marketing purposes. TRAI recommends that the rating be made mandatory for all existing and newer buildings of public importance within two years of the framework’s formalisation, or two years from obtaining occupancy certificate, whichever is later.

Buildings of public importance which would mandatorily fall under its purview include airports, ports, railway stations, metro stations, bus stations, industrial estates (including industrial parks, SEZs, multi-modal logistic parks), large commercial shopping complexes, higher education institutes and multi-speciality hospitals, among other places.

The assessment would combine objective and subjective considerations with suitable weightage. Objective metrics for assessment would include key-performance indicators like digital connectivity infrastructure availability, network performance and service performance. The subjective component would involve surveying end users about perceptions of quality.

For public places, like airports and railway stations, TRAI has sought that the requisite infrastructure be “agile enough to cater to a dynamic number of users such that quality of services is not affected during traffic peaks.” The demand for connectivity and quality network at these places fluctuates as per season or traffic during different times of the day, thus resulting in short periods of demand but in potentially greater volumes— as in the case of people riding the train during rush hour.

This is unlike businesses and residential complexes which have a more predictable pattern of consumption varying only according to their payment capacity and type of digital connectivity.

Further, the certification issued would be valid for a specified period. It would also provide conditions under which they may be withdrawn or require to be renewed. For example, performance quality during a certain period might degrade because of increase in average traffic or the availability of new technology networks or spectrum bands. Should an additional capability be introduced, an incremental assessment would determine the new rating.

How will the rating be done?

The process would be voluntary. After registering, due diligence would be carried out in two stages — initially offsite and then onsite. Following this, a rating would be awarded and if required, a renewal or review of the rating.

During the initial onsite process, the regulatory authority would provide the applicant with action points, classifying them into mandatory, recommended and optional. ‘Mandatory’ action points, if not addressed, would halt progress to the next stage, while not following recommended action points would result in lowered ratings, even though they can otherwise be ignored. Optional action points are entirely suggestive measures.

The second stage— the onsite verification— needs to be completed within sixty days from the date on which the on-site verification is requested, provided the applicant has complied with the requirements in the earlier stage.

After this stage, the scores are updated as necessary and finalised. Should the applicant not be happy with their score, an online appeal may be filed within 30 days.

The emphasis is on collaborative efforts to improve the quality of services for 847.31 million wireless internet subscribers. In a related context, TRAI said that wireless coverage “has become the main access technology for digital connectivity in India,” accounting for almost 98.5% of broadband connections in the country.

In recent weeks, the telecom industry loudly demanded a ‘network usage fee’ from Big Tech platforms whose traffic constitutes a major part of the data flowing through the Indian internet. Internet rights groups have pushed back on these demands, saying that they are a violation of net neutrality, the principle that all data online should be treated equally. These demands come following years of setbacks to the telecom industry’s efforts to get more revenue for data services. 

Meanwhile, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), India’s telecom regulator, has sought public comments on this subject, and on whether messaging apps should be regulated. The regulator is asking whether it is possible for telecom operators to work with messaging apps, and social media platforms to block access to their services instead of imposing an internet shutdown. These two issues need some perspective to assess them.

In 2015, TRAI launched a consultation paper on a regulatory framework for ‘OTT services’. Netflix had not yet launched in India, and OTT, which stands for over-the-top, had not yet become strongly associated with streaming services in India. OTT services ride ‘over the top’ of internet networks, and don’t own the infrastructure of telecom networks through which their services ultimately reach people. 

The consultation included a section on ‘Network Neutrality’. Bharti Airtel Ltd had, in the previous year, announced that it would start charging users more for data that they used for placing online calls, such as on apps like Viber. The announcement sparked a pushback, and TRAI said it would consider the public’s views on the subject. Airtel dropped its announced tariff while the issue was being considered. 

Overwhelming public support for net neutrality

The public responded overwhelmingly in support of Net Neutrality, aided by advocacy tools and ready-to-send emails drafted by the Save the Internet coalition, which would later become the Internet Freedom Foundation. Facebook, which sensed an existential threat to its Internet.org offering that offered some parts of the internet on participating telcos’ networks for free, entered the fray with its own public outreach and advocacy. 

TRAI ended up spinning Net Neutrality off into a separate consultation, asking the public if ‘differential pricing’ of data should be allowed. That is, should telecom operators be allowed to charge people different amounts for accessing different services online? Internet rights groups — along with groups of start-ups — said no. In 2016, TRAI prohibited telecom companies from charging what it now called ‘discriminatory tariffs’. The Net Neutrality proponents had scored a victory.

Net neutrality includes different pricing for apps and platforms

However, Net Neutrality is about more than just what the consumer pays for access. It’s also about speeds, and whether telecom operators can selectively slow down traffic on their networks. Another issue is whether telecom operators can demand payments from the owners of websites and apps from which they receive a lot of traffic, and restrict data from them if the latter refuse. The net neutrality debate in the US since 2014 has centred around this issue.  

Telecom companies are all licensed by the Union Government’s Department of Telecommunications (DoT), and wireless telecom operators often obtain a Unified Licence, which sets out the exhaustive legal framework that telcos have to comply with. In October 2018, the Unified Licence was amended to hard-code Net Neutrality in the licence telcos obtain to operate. 

TRAI seeks consultation on contours of net neutrality rules

From 2017 onwards, TRAI consulted the public on how Net Neutrality rules must be understood, and what kinds of ‘traffic management practices’ should be allowed. The regulator recommended that a multi-stakeholder body be set up with participation from telecom operators, civil society and academia. 

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the government’s austerity measures in 2020, the DoT decided against forming this committee, even though TRAI argued that the public exchequer would not have to bear the brunt of the associated expenses. 

All this while, telecom operators have constantly argued that services like WhatsApp should be regulated, and that the ‘same service’ (voice calling and messaging) should be treated by regulators with the ‘same rules’. Telecom operators have not made much headway in realising these demands thus far. 

The European Commission began exploratory consultations this February on whether telcos can seek revenue sharing from online platforms. This renewed Indian telcos’ own demands. Telcos have argued from both national security and business grounds: that there is no mandated surveillance on messaging apps, and that they are only asking for a small share of the most successful companies’ profits. 

Government considering alternatives to internet shutdowns

In all these years, the Government imposed several internet shutdowns all across India. In Jammu and Kashmir, the longest shutdown in India was imposed following the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution. In Manipur, the internet has remained shut down for months, and after briefly lifting the ban, the government reimposed it. 

The Government is considering more targeted responses, as communications shutdowns lead to massive disruptions across sectors. Licensing these services is one suggestion, even though TRAI recommended against regulating OTT apps in September 2020. 

Meta, which owns WhatsApp, has not directly participated in these consultations this time, and its views are likely expressed through filings by various industry associations, which it is a part of. The ITI Council and the Asia Internet Coalition, two such associations, told TRAI that such moves would be counterproductive, and advised against it. 

Telecom industry more receptive to net neutrality now

On Net Neutrality at least, the telecom industry seems optimistic. The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI)’s Director General S.P. Kocchar said in a media briefing in September that the Government was being more receptive to their demands than before. Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology Rajeev Chandrasekhar also said on X, formerly Twitter, that Net Neutrality was important to defend. (Mr. Chandrasekhar’s work allocation in the Ministry does not include telecommunications.) 

Ultimately, telecom companies and advocacy groups have dug their heels in, finding themselves in a consultative process on Net Neutrality as well as regulating OTT services, the same situation they were in eight years ago.