And @DoT_India and @AshwiniVaishnaw are considering changing India's hard fought and globally recognised #NetNeutrality standing. I hope @PMOIndia is watching this. The Draft telecom bill decidedly favours mobile operators, and seeks to bring even email under licensing. It's
2/n
Such lazy policymaking, so archaic in thinking, that it will even bring ecommerce, cloud, video streaming, payments... Everything under a licensing regime, and specifically under @DoT_India . This when there's an easy fix. How should it change?
3/n
Separate Access from Services. Telecom operators don't provide the internet, which is global. They provide access to it. That uses spectrum, which is a scarce national resource. A progressive telecom regulation would license Access to ensure better utilisation of spectrum and
4/n
Take internet services licensing out of the telecom framework. If telcos see rich text messaging as a substitute for SMS (they're imperfect substitutes), then they're free to launch online services, like they have done for music and many others. And those shouldn't be licensed
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Forget the penalty imposed on Google in India by @CCI_India . What really hurts Google is this 👇
Interestingly, and this is important: @CCI_India found no substitutability between Google’s Play Store and Apple’s App Store, and the competition between Android and Apple is only at the time of deciding which device to buy.
2/n
Also, @CCI_India said that Apple has vertical integration, with the objective of selling devices. Google's "ultimate intent" is to increase users for its services.
CCI found Google dominant in the following markets:
Frankly, @Paytm 's problem is not @vijayshekhar . Problem is the Indian govt that destroyed the digital payments business model with Zero MDR & @NPCI_NPCI
that is a private org but does the Indian govt's bidding.
Look at what is happening in UPI: 1. Where is competition, hundreds of UPI apps? 3 apps dominate: GPay, PhonePe, Paytm. Hardly anyone is a even a blip in this space. So much so that @NPCI_NPCI if forcing restricting market share
1/
To 30% because govt is concerned about dominance. But none is really benefiting from that dominance. 2. No business model w Zero MDR, so no one wants to be in it unless they have money to burn. This disaster is responsibility of the FinMin & Revenue Secretary who forced this.
2/
Some thoughts on this: 1. A law of markets: first there's bundling (cable tv). Then there's unbundling (streaming). Then there is bundling. We're already seeing bundling in India, as a part of telco plans, to reduce subscriber acquisition costs.
2. Advertising and subscriptions are often at odds with each other. One is focused on premium offerings, and pitches less interruptions with ads. The other focuses on increasing subscriber base to deliver better reach for advertisers. Disney+ is increasing prices while
2/n
Incorporating ads. There will be pressure:
a. From subscribers to reduce pricing else they'll leave. This isn't 2020 and people aren't stuck at home.
b. From advertisers eventually for greater reach.
Either advertising will flop, or the price rise won't sustain.
Let's see.
3/n
There's uncertainty in the crypto space again, after the Cryptocurrency Bill is expected to get tabled. The problem is the announcement text: which states in its description that the Bill seeks to "prohibit all private cryptocurrencies in India".This is confused nomenclature.
1/n
It's not clear which cryptocurrencies are private, and which are public - does that mean publicly available, or only those issued by governments (of which there are none).
There have been rumours about the RBI planning their own cryptocurrencies -- so called Laxmi Coin.
2/n
Some countries like China have theirs. At the same time, there are several regulatory issues around cryptocurrencies that NEED to be discussed: around black money, hawala, taxation etc.
3/n
Supreme Court has appointed a largely technical committee, headed by Justice Ravindran, former SC judge, to investigate the Indian government's usage of Pegasus. I'll be on NDTV at 9pm on this.
A thread (which I'll update through today) 1. National security: SC observed
1/
that "National Security" is not a free pass for the govt to do what it wants. Their alleged usage of Pegasus needs to be investigated. Hence an expert committee
2. Not a govt committee: the court has appointed its own committee and chose not to accept the govts offer of
2/
Constituting its own committee, because the investigation needs to be independent of the govt.
3. Insufficient response: from the govt regarding the allegations made by the petition, despite sufficient opportunity given to the govt by the SC.