For preventing red tape and impairing innovation we submit counter-comments to TRAI on the could services consultation

Tl;dr

Earlier this month, we updated you on a submission we made to the TRAI on Cloud Services where it put out a consultation paper that suggested the regulation of cloud service providers through the creation of overseeing industry bodies. We just submitted our counter comments on the paper and thankfully a lot of other groups agree with our stance that this sector does not need more regulation!

It's raining, no it's pouring, over-regulation

If you were a little busy this beginning holiday season and missed our post how the TRAI intends to regulate cloud service provider, you can read all about it in our previous post here. Coming back to TRAI’s worrying decision; as part of our counter comments, as always we created a tabular chart of vital submissions made by each group that responded to the consultation paper and of-course provided further comments to each of them.

This 40-something document is definitely a task to go through but while we urge you to read up on the submissions (some of them are really interesting), we’ve got you covered on the most important snippets - yes, it is a breakdown of who is for the paper’s main suggestion (of regulating cloud service providers) and who is against.

In favour

1. Cloud Computing Innovation Council of India
   The CCICI has broadly shown support toward the paper, however, it disagrees on a few nitty-gritties such as the type of category based on which a Cloud Service Provider (CSP) should be registered.
2. Consumer Care Society and Consumer Protection Association
   Both these consumer based bodies have indicated that CSPs be regulated with specific suggestions in response to the paper’s questions on how do so as well. Not keeping in mind the consumers too much eh?
3. PayMate, Reliance Jio, Tata Teleservices
   Unsurprisingly, Reliance and Tata (the telecom based groups) have advocated for the regulation of CSPs and although they disagree on the need for the creation of single or multiple bodies, they have both maintained that it important to avoid confusion and conflicting agendas. PayMate on the other hand has demonstrated partial support to the extent that it has emphasised on only the need for self-regulation by the industry.

Against

Out of the 21 submission made, a majority has been against the idea of regulation of CSPs. This section’s format is slightly different, as a large portion of the groups agree on the same points, we’ve put forth some of the important arguments made against the paper’s intentions.

First, here are the list of groups that have shown disapproval; Asia Cloud Computing Association, Asia Internet Coalition, Amazon Web Services, Broadband Indian Forum, BSA, Cellular Operation Association of India, IAMAI, Information Technology Industry Council, Internet Service Providers Association of India, NASSCOM, Telecom User Group, India, US India Business Council, VMware Software India and ofcourse, yours truly.

There has been unanimous agreement that the CSPs are governed by MEITY; this reasoning has been supported by the point that MEITY is tasked with developing policies for information technology and the Internet under the Allocation of Business Rules. We broadly echo and endorse these concerns.

You can read our counter comments as well as our initial submission below.

Important Documents

1. Counter comments on TRAI's Consultation Paper on Cloud Services (link)
2. Initial comments on TRAI's Consultation Paper on Cloud Services (link)

If you believe red tape should be used for wrapping up Christmas gifts but not could services support our work by becoming an IFF member today! We are able to our work based off locally grown, individual donations from Indians like you!