Over-The-Top (OTT) Services

IN NEWS:

• The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) recently released a consultation paper on regulatory mechanisms for over-the-top (OTT) communication services and selective banning of OTT services, seeking inputs from stakeholders.

MORE ON NEWS:

• The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is revisiting its stance and starting consultations on how these services can be regulated, almost three years after it first recommended against creating a specific regulatory framework for over-the-top (OTT) communication services like WhatsApp, Zoom, Google Meet, etc.

WHAT ARE OVER-THE-TOP (OTT) SERVICES AND OTT COMMUNICATION SERVICES?

• OTT services are defined as video, voice, and other services provided over the Internet rather than solely over the provider’s own managed network.
• As per International Telecommunication Union (ITU), OTT is an “application accessed and delivered over the public Internet that may be a direct technical/ functional substitute for traditional international telecommunication services.”
• The most commonly referred to OTT service is video streaming. Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, Disney+, and YouTube are OTT providers in the video streaming space.
• Spotify is considered an OTT platform in the audio streaming space for both music and podcasts.
• While WhatsApp, Telegram, Slack, Signal etc are considered OTT platforms in the internet messaging space ,also known as OTT communication services.

WHY DO OTT COMMUNICATION SERVICES NEED TO BE REGULATED?

• Need for regulatory parity:
  • In its consultation paper, the TRAI argued that while telecom operators and OTT platforms such as WhatsApp offer similar services, they are not bound by the same requirements; as a result, there is a need for regulatory parity.
  • For instance, telecom operators need a service licence for offering voice and SMS services, and on the other hand, OTT communication service providers offer services similar to those provided by TSPs without any such licence.

• Level playing field:
  • Telecom service providers are seeking a level playing field with OTT apps over communication services such as voice calls, messages, etc., where operators had to incur high costs of licences and spectrum while OTT players rode on their infrastructure to offer free services.
• Contribution towards the telecom service penetration:
  • OTT services do not financially contribute towards increasing telecom service penetration in the country, unlike the telecom operators, who have to pay towards the Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF).
• Intersectionality in regulations:
  • There is intersectionality in regulations around Internet services, with multiple government agencies claiming a stake in the sector.
  • The draft telecom Bill released by the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) in 2022 also recommended bringing OTT services under its ambit by creating a licencing regime for them. The IT Ministry is already the nodal ministry for regulating such services.
• National security and public order:
  • OTT platforms, including communication services, are not subject to lawful interception and monitoring by security agencies and are outside of the regulatory and licencing regime in the country, which pose a threat to national security and public order.
  • For instance, internet telephony does not follow standard protocol, as is essential in traditional voice services through GSM. This is a cause of concern for security agencies since it is extremely difficult to trace the source of internet calls. For instance, during a terrorist attack, it becomes extremely complex to intercept calls that appear to have originated from other countries from virtual numbers.
  • Also, lawful interception and regulation of OTT communication services are required to prevent the spread of misinformation, incitement to violence or criminal activities etc.

WAYFORWARD:

• Lawful interception and  proper regulatory  regime:
  • OTT platforms, including communication services, should be subject to lawful interception and monitoring by security agencies, and there should be a regulatory and licencing regime for internet-based communications companies to ensure that they adhere to the rules and guidelines of the country to ensure national security and public order.
• Self-regulation as an alternative:
  • Given the nature of OTT services and their growing reach, self-regulation presents itself as a strong alternative to state regulation and control.
• Collaborative framework:
  • There is a need for a collaborative framework between OTT communication service providers and licensed telecommunication service providers to avoid issues between OTT providers and TSPs.

PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. Discuss the need for a separate legal framework to regulate the online news and OTT platforms.