“OTT services whose core offering is something else but they also offer instant messaging/voice/video calling features independent of the core offering should be treated as Direct OTT communication services,” the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) said in its response to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's (TRAI) consultation on the regulation and selective banning of OTT communication services. It gives the example of Instagram and Paytm to explain what these services would be and explains that such services (along with the platforms whose core functionality is voice/video calls and instant messaging) should fall under the category of direct OTT communication services. It further adds that “the principle of ‘same service – same rules’ needs to be applied in case of such OTT communication services vis-à-vis traditional licensed telecom services.” COAI, Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA), and the Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) argued in favor of regulating OTT communication services. While the latter two have not defined OTT communication services to the same degree as COAI, all of them agree on one thing: OTT platforms should be regulated and charged a fee for using telcos’ network infrastructure. Some context: TRAI’s consultation paper on the regulation of OTT communication services and selective banning of apps focuses on the following broad themes— Revenue share agreements between OTTs and telcos. (i.e. OTTs should pay telcos for using their infrastructure) Licensing and regulatory requirements for OTTs. The selective banning of OTT services in periods of unrest (i.e. banning specific…
