Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses  ||  Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out  ||  Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease  ||  Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory  ||  NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors  ||  NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date  ||  Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required  ||  NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes  ||  Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction    

Differential pricing stopped, differentiation possible still - (08 Feb 2016)

MANU/TRAI/0017/2016

Media and Communication

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India released the ‘Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016’, restraining internet service providers from offering or charging discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content. The Regulations do not apply to tariffs for data services over closed electronic communications networks, unless of course the same purport to bypass the Regulations. However, permitted is a reduction in tariff for accessing or providing emergency services or during public emergencies (perfunctory, perhaps, since the Supreme Court stayed mum over States’ authority to block internet access to maintain law and order). Internet service providers contravening provisions of the Regulations can face penalties up to Rs. 50 lakhs. An accompanying Explanatory Memorandum accepted the dilemma forced by a potentially more affordable internet with the possibility of a negative effect on small content providers who would be sidelined. The Regulations made no mention of a selective prioritizing of web content, which is seen as another limb in the creation of “classes” of internet. Whereas data “throttling” suggests a wholesale reduction in download or upload speeds, also is a technical ability of service providers to prioritise delivery (or ‘speed’) of certain data. Such a capability can help manage time-sensitive data when networks face particularly heavy demands from users. Transfer of online videos, for instance, can be prioritised over the delivery of webpages, slowing their download perceptibly or im-, to reduce the incidence of ‘buffering’. So, the next time that Ministry of Finance video on YouTube doesn’t stutter on a Saturday, remember your connection to hpf-india.com/ may be paying the price.

Tags : DIFFERENTIAL PRICING   REGULATIONS   TRAI   2016  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved