Telcos and other internet providers craft various arguments to justify their desire to double-charge. They know consumer welfare is intertwined with net neutrality, so they pivot to an amorphous notion of “economic justice”. Their logic? Big app companies earn significant profits and consume vast internet bandwidth, so they should fund telco-driven internet expansion and upgrades.

However, telcos overlook that app companies have poured about a trillion dollars into global internet infrastructure over the past decade. Without apps, telcos offer little to consumers. Point-to-point communication is commoditised; hence, telcos now bundle apps with their services. They’re also acquiring app-layer businesses at a rapid pace. It’s worth noting that telcos purchase expensive spectrum out of self-interest.

Let’s explore two market-based scenarios that might justify additional charges, keeping in mind that net neutrality is fundamentally an economic debate. In the first scenario, app service “A” pays telco “B” for increased internet bandwidth. This assumes a bandwidth scarcity in the 5G era, which many argue against since it has increased throughput by a factor up to 100, relative to 4G. In any case, if A can keep paying B for more networks, A can technically do so till it forecloses competition in its own market. That is, it can pay for a large share of supposedly finite internet bandwidth until a threshold beyond which it is not possible for its app-layer peers to compete without burning capital.

The ability to pay for finite bandwidth not only breaches net neutrality but also skews the concept of economic justice. The internet would no longer be an even playing field for digital entrepreneurs and innovators. Conversely, if internet bandwidth is not scarce, which many contend is the case in 5G networks at current levels of usage, no economic logic suggests that A should pay B any more than anyone else who pays B.

In the second scenario, app business “A” pays telco “B” for superior service quality. This directly contravenes net neutrality. There’s no way “B” can offer “A” better service without discriminating against other data packets. However, the concept of network slicing — which allows a 5G network to be virtually divided into multiple sub-networks or slices, each tailored to a specific application’s requirements — is an essential nuance to add to the second scenario. This raises a potential contradiction. How can we reconcile the principles of neutrality, a cornerstone of the internet, with slicing, a fundamental aspect of 5G?

Some institutions such as the Body of European Regulator for Electronic Communications suggest defining “specialised services” that might be exempt from neutrality constraints. But the definition of such services remains ambiguous. Given the transformative potential of network slicing, especially for critical sectors like health care, the Indian government could consider providing clear guidelines on its implementation. Such clarity would ensure that the core principles of net neutrality remain uncompromised.

India boasts a vibrant, market-driven internet ecosystem unparalleled in the developing world. It’s a dynamic space where newcomers regularly challenge established players. Replacing this thriving commercial foundation with short-sighted opportunism masked as economic justice could spell disaster.

Vivan Sharan is a partner at Koan Advisory, and consults with a wide range of digital economy businesses. The views expressed are personal