Time is running out for citizens to send comment on India’s proposed telecommunications bill, which, as it stands, could change how the Internet is used – in dangerous ways. This bill was set to modernize the old laws governing our telecom sector. While an update was needed, the draft bill suggests the government is willing to gift itself a license raj that could not only stifle digital innovation, but also invade user privacy. It begins with a fundamental flaw in the definition that allows the term “telecommunications services” to encompass nearly every aspect of our online experience – from email and social media to messaging and video sharing within apps – that over the telecommunications airwaves. rides. Subsequently, the government claims a default monopoly on all such services in India, requiring private players to operate like telecommunications companies do. So Gmail, WhatsApp and Zoom, among other apps on our handsets, would suddenly require government approval. This goes against an early truth of digital life: the Internet is not owned by a state. Nor do the apps use state-allocated spectrum to work. Since licensing will be a new lever of control, it will also affect our right to free expression. The bill should roll back this overreach.
Even with clear criteria being laid down and no limit on the issuance of permits, the licensing would hand over arbitrary rights on market entry to the state. It spurs toll collection and stifles innovation, as our ubiquitous license raj during the heyday of statistics should remind us. This will be sad because openly accessible markets hold the key to innovation, which is at the heart of a digital leap for which India’s economy is ready. We should not bog down startups with the new regulatory burden. It may be worthwhile for telecom functionaries to demand a license for anything they use to get in touch with us, as they have become data vendors after various apps have assumed their original roles. But this is a clearly false equivalence. Telecom firms are required to allocate spectrum to provide us internet access, which would have justified their licensing, whereas the apps in question cannot (and thus can operate without the license raj, as they have so far) ). Only the maximum ownership role of the state would allow chat supporters to dominate the state; This is the approach taken by colonial and communist regimes, not democratic administrations that prioritize trade and social freedom.
The draft Telecom Bill also requires that all licensed telecom services “distinctly identify the person to whom it may be prescribed provides services through a verifiable mode of identification.” True, online anonymity is a mixed blessing, but with Know Your Customer norms help secure bank services, etc., implementing it for social interactions would be a case of overkill. The bill, which takes its inspiration from colonial-era legislation designed to keep people under surveillance, would technically make the message traceable—or breaking encryption—a license condition. Those asking for separate rules face a legal challenge for privacy violations, and unless our personal data is protected by a law, we could find ourselves even more exposed to prying eyes. This, despite us, has upheld the need for the judiciary to protect us from invasions of privacy, whether by big tech or big government. The Supreme Court has recognized privacy as part of our package of fundamental rights, which makes it essential to our democratic liberties. The draft Telecom Bill violates both commercial sense and constitutional discretion. Parliament should not enact it in its present form.
catch all business News, market news, today’s fresh news events and breaking news Updates on Live Mint. download mint news app To get daily market updates.