The Economic Times daily newspaper is available online now.

    Rolling back net neutrality can spur investments in economies like India: Ajit Pai

    Synopsis

    Certainly a country that is as close to the US as India is, we would want to continue to have those lines of communication open, says Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission talking about net neutrality.

    njnjnj
    Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission
    ET Q&A

    Two years ago, his controversial decision to revoke network, or net, neutrality in the US triggered a massive backlash. Unfazed by the criticism, Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, argues that rolling back net neutrality — a principle that requires internet service providers to treat all communication on their networks equally — can in fact spur fresh capital investments, particularly in emerging and developing economies such as India.

    In an interview with Surabhi Agarwal on the sidelines of the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, he said that while every country has to take its own decision (on the issue), “since India has a close relationship with the US, the lines of communication on this front are open”. Edited Excerpts.


    Elevate Your Tech Prowess with High-Value Skill Courses

    Offering CollegeCourseWebsite
    MITMIT Technology Leadership and InnovationVisit
    Indian School of BusinessISB Professional Certificate in Product ManagementVisit
    Indian School of BusinessISB Product ManagementVisit
    Your decision to repeal net neutrality was widely criticised. Are there any signs that it was beneficial?
    I remember a lot of predictions were made about it being the end of the internet as we know it, that it would work one word at a time, you won’t be able to access your favourite websites, you will have to pay $5 to post on Instagram. Two years later, the average fixed broadband speeds in the US are up more than 60%, according to independent reports. More fiber was deployed in 2019 than in any previous year. Millions more Americans have gained access to the internet for the first time, venture capital in 2018 set a record in terms of funding for startups. These are the types of things that prove that our decision (to have) a market-based framework was the right one and all these historic, hysterical predictions were completely false. We don’t want to see any blocking of content or throttling, we want to see transparency.

    India has taken the opposite position on this issue…
    Every country has to make its own decision and I told (Trai chairman) RS Sharma this as well. From our perspective, the proof is in the pudding. The last two years have been extremely successful and instead of dwindling and going away, the internet is stronger than ever.

    Is this is because the US is a developed economy?
    I think it is the other way. Given that (India) is a developing economy that means that the capital expenditures that are necessary to make these broadband networks are going to be even more difficult to come by. You would want to have more market-based frameworks that encourage companies to raise capital, hire workers (and) build networks. That is just an iron law of economics, if there is no return on investment that companies make, they are not going to engage in those activities. But it’s a decision that every country has to take.

    How do you see the unfolding of the 5G ecosystem, what are the risks?
    There are two different aspects to the issue. To put the building blocks in place to (ensure) US leadership in 5G, we've adopted what I've called the 5G fast plan. This involves getting more spectrum into the commercial marketplace, making it easier to deploy wireless infrastructure and promoting fiber deployment. On the security side, we are working in the US to make sure that, for example, FCC funds are not used by companies that may present a national security threat.

    The Indian government recently allowed Huawei and others to go for 5G trials…
    We will continue to work with them to understand their point of view and to also share our point of view. Certainly a country that is as close to the US as India is, we would want to continue to have those lines of communication open.

    There is a huge challenge emerging of regulating social media because of the hate speech and misinformation spreading on it.how do you look at this issue?

    It is definitely a global issue. I've noticed here in the United States and India and other countries as well that these platforms out in a sense the public square for the 21st century. you see a lot of people interacting there. On the other hand I have heard concerns as well that there are some downsides to these kinds of interaction. The Federal Communications Commission does not have jurisdiction over those types of issues and it is for the Congress to debate some of these issues.

    It's very difficult to draw a line. The US of course is embracing the first amendment which generally speaking prohibits the government from getting into the business of content regulation and sorting out which speeches allowed with certain exceptions. It's incredibly difficult. I have high respect for those in India who have to think about these questions from a policymaking perspective but issue is certainly important.

    The issue of anonymous, community data is becoming very important. While New York has asked Firms like Uber to share information with the government on how people travel, California has passed a law that put the onus on retailers like Amazon to inform users about the data being stored and used by them?

    This is interesting. So, some of the tech companies have come to Washington saying that we need a federal law to provide a consistent level of regulation across the country because the law in California might not be the same as law in Nevada, Oregon or New York etc. it is so much easier to have a single piece of federal legislation and that's something that generally speaking seems to have a lot of support in Washington. The the question remains what exactly should that federal framework be and that's something that Congress is going to have to sort out. I can imagine in India, it's a similar issue that it can get difficult for companies to figure out what is prohibited and what is allowed in different states..

    Which side of the debate are you on, whether the government can mandate companies to share data with them?

    I have consistently said that when it comes to the country’s generation and storage and the use of consumer data, the line that the Federal Trade Commission traditionally has drawn appears to be a fairly solid one which is that if the information is sensitive, an opt in approach is the best one. If it's non-sensitive then the opt out approach is the right one. that's the line the Federal Trade Commission has drawn for many many years and that is one under which the companies in the internet economy have been able to thrive. Consumers generally speaking have seen the benefits and understand the trade off of but whether that model should be tweaked to something else that depends on any given state or any different country.

    But it’s a very ifficult question but it is certainly one of the issues that people on the federal level will have to sort it out.
    The Economic Times

    Stories you might be interested in