--- layout: default title: "Leave The Net Alone" description: "A BW Businessworld article by Abraham C Mathew on net neutrality, the FCC debate, and the risk of discriminatory network treatment, with comments from Sunil Abraham." categories: [Media mentions] date: 2014-12-15 authors: ["Abraham C Mathew"] source: "BW Businessworld" permalink: /media/leave-the-net-alone-bw-businessworld/ created: 2026-05-25 --- **Leave The Net Alone** is a *BW Businessworld* article by Abraham C Mathew, published in the 15 December 2014 issue. The piece explains the principle of net neutrality through the US FCC debate and includes comments from [Sunil Abraham](/sunil/) on the lack of clear net neutrality law in India. ## Contents 1. [Article Details](#article-details) 2. [Full Text](#full-text) 3. [Context and Background](#context-and-background) ## Article Details
📰 Published in:
BW Businessworld
📅 Date:
15 December 2014
👤 Author:
Abraham C Mathew
📄 Type:
Magazine Article
📰 Article Link:
Not available online
## Full Text

"The Internet is currently not broke, and the FCC is out to fix it," began John Oliver, American talk-show host and comedian, introducing his show's discussion on Net neutrality. America's telecom regulator Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had just proposed allowing Internet carriers to give preference on their network to websites in exchange for a fee.

For example, in an Indian context, if *BW Businessworld* was to, hypothetically, pay Airtel a fee, and Airtel were to, in turn, give priority access to the website, it might be natural to argue that eventually, Airtel subscribers would prefer *BW Businessworld*'s website over its rivals'.

The Internet, like the air we breathe, has traditionally been neutral ground. Nobody (read, no corporate) is allowed to buy preferential treatment on the Internet. "The point of Net neutrality is that on the Internet you cannot have discrimination on where the information is originating from or who is the consumer," says Mihir Parikh, partner at law firm Nishith Desai Associates. He compares it to telephone networks where calls get connected on a first-come basis. Nobody has a predominant right over call connections.

And that is exactly what the FCC's proposals threaten to change, by allowing American carriers such as Verizon or Comcast to charge a fee to give priority on their network to fee payers, like, for example, Daily Motion, which would then get an advantage over rival YouTube. On 10 September, several websites including Mozilla and Netflix deliberately slowed down their sites to show how a slow Internet would look. Last week, US president Barack Obama put his weight behind a free Internet, where nobody can pay "their way up". The FCC will make its final recommendations next year.

While an Indian browsing the Net is not likely to be affected by the FCC recommendations, it is possible that the transmission of less favoured US-based websites do not get priority, thereby slowing access to them, says Parikh.

But the episode calls attention to the picture in India. "There are no specific laws that speak to the Net neutrality situation in India," says Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet and Society. So it could be possible that carriers are already censoring speeds to certain services that take up heavy bandwidth. Slow speeds for torrent downloads are an example. Abraham calls for crowd sourced, technically sound research to explore whether carriers are engaging in such practices, as a prelude to petitioning the government for enlightened regulation.

(This story was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 15-12-2014)

{% include back-to-top.html %} ## Context and Background This article appeared during a major global debate on net neutrality, when the US FCC's proposals had raised fears that telecom carriers could create paid fast lanes for preferred websites. It frames the issue for Indian readers by asking whether similar forms of discrimination could already be happening in India without clear legal safeguards. Sunil Abraham's quoted intervention shifts the piece from an international policy debate to an Indian regulatory concern. His remarks underline the absence of specific law in India at the time and argue for technically rigorous public research as a basis for better policy.