All HC: Can’t Invoke Penalty Proceedings u/s 129 of UPGST Act, 2017 For Search And Seizure Of Godown  ||  All. HC: Businessman Doing Business Activities Within Slum Can’t Be Called a Slum Dweller  ||  SC: No Charity Being Done By State For Paying Compensation to Person Whose Land Was Acquired  ||  Gauhati HC: Can’t Shift Burden of Proof on Accused if Multiple Witnesses of Crime Present  ||  SC: Contempt Notice Issued Against Patanjali For Continued Publishing of Misleading Advertisements  ||  SC: Registry Can’t Decide Whether or Not Review Petiton Merits Relook Through Curative Petiton  ||  Bom. HC: Imprisonment Exceeding Twelve Months Can’t Be Given For Default in Payment of Maintenance  ||  Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved