Why Much Of The Criticism Of The New Telecom Bill Is Misplaced And Must Be Called Out

The government on Monday (18 December) tabled the Telecommunications Bill, 2023 to replace 138-year-old colonial era Telegraph Act.

The bill, which comes after years of deliberations, consolidates spectrum, right of way, and dispute resolution, among other aspects, into one fresh statute.

The introduction of the bill has been a topic of discussion amid ongoing claims that the bill is anti-internet, suggesting it covers all online services and imposes various restrictions and requirements on them.

However, a closer examination indicates that these fears may be overstated, as it primarily adheres to existing legal frameworks and definitions.

A core misunderstanding is the belief that the bill broadly categorises all online services, such as email, cloud computing, SAAS, and streaming services, under the umbrella of telecommunications.

This interpretation is a leap from the bill's actual framework, which adheres to the traditional definitions established in the Telegraph Act of 1887 and the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1933.

The bill does not redefine these services as telecommunications, thereby not extending regulatory control over them as many fear.

Another major concern is the supposed requirement for government authorisation for online services. The narrative suggests an impending regime where every digital service would need to navigate bureaucratic red tape to operate.

However, this is not the case. The bill does not mandate such sweeping authorisations for online services, especially not for platforms like WhatsApp and other OTT services.

Critics argue that the bill paves the way for invasive biometric data collection, echoing the larger global debate on privacy and data protection.

However, this concern is misplaced within the context of the Telecom Bill.

It does not introduce such requirements for email, SAAS, or cloud services, countering the narrative of an Orwellian surveillance state.

Concerns about increased government surveillance and interception capabilities under the bill have also been prominent.

Critics argue that it could lead to a massive overreach in government power, allowing unwarranted intrusion into personal communications.

However, the bill's provisions on surveillance and interception do not deviate significantly from existing legal standards and guidelines, which are already governed by Supreme Court-approved principles.

Similarly, the fear that the government could take control over online services in scenarios involving national security seems to be an exaggerated interpretation of the bill's provisions.

These provisions are primarily intended for exceptional circumstances, like war, and align with constitutional safeguards, not a blanket authority over internet services.

Much of the criticism of the new telecom bill is misplaced and must be called out in the interest of reforms.