Vizag police launch ‘Astram' app to tackle traffic issues in the city
Ms. Anitha said the city police have been trying to ensure a smoother traffic, and the app was being launched keeping in view the interests of public. She said that with the city growing by leaps and bounds, traffic issues have become a major problem and the government was using technology to tackle it.
Mr. Shankabratha Bagchi said Visakhapatnam is the only city after Bengaluru, where the 'Astram' app will be used by the police as well as public. Though the app was launched in Vijayawada earlier, it is only being used by the police.
He said that the public can get real-time updates about the traffic in the city using the app, which will can be downloaded from the Play Store. He said field officers and traffic police on duty will report traffic situations in their localities to the control room, and the data will be integrated and further shared on the app on real time.
The officer added that the app allows an analysis of the cause of the traffic congestions—whether it is a vehicle breakdown, road accident, road design issue or signal problem. The police can analyse and come up with solution, he opined.
He said the app will also helps design green channels during VIP movements and transportation of body organs during emergencies.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
AI-based complaint registration has instilled confidence in public, say Eluru police
The artificial intelligence (AI)-based complaint registration system launched in Eluru district has instilled confidence among the public and given good results, according to police officers. Superintendent of Police (SP) K. Pratap Shiva Kishore had launched the AI-Bot grievance registration in the Public Grievance Redressal System (PGRS) in May this year as a pilot project. Public can lodge their complaints through from home. They can also submit their grievances to the Circle Inspector, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) concerned or the SP. 'Complainants can register their grievance digitally by sitting in front of the system in their own language. The person can directly interact through AI-Bot and record their voice, and the system will collect necessary information from the petitioner and generate the complaint,' Mr. Pratap Shiva Kishore said. The complainants can know the status of their AI-based grievances by dialling 1100. Complaints received through AI-Bot will have digital evidence and will be helpful for the investigation officers as well as the public, the SP said. 'Every Monday we are getting close to 50 grievances, majority of which are land disputes, cheating, family disputes and other crimes,' Mr. Pratap Shiva Kishore said. 'There is no need for the public to come all the way to SP's office in Eluru for the PGRS. They can instead register their complaints by logging on to and know its status from time to time,' the SP said. 'The AI-based complaint registration system is easy, transparent and increases the responsibility on police officers. There is no need to meet the officer directly. We can just sit in front of the computer and generate the complaint,' said a petitioner from Kaikalur who came to lodge a complaint.
The Hindu
11 hours ago
- The Hindu
Google vs CCI: What the Android antitrust case means for India's digital ecosystem
Story so far: On August 8, 2025, the Supreme Court admitted an appeal filed by Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, against a judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). The tribunal had earlier upheld, at least in part, the Competition Commission of India's (CCI) findings that Google had abused its dominant position in the Android ecosystem to indulge in anti-competitive practices. Alongside Google's appeal, the Court also admitted related petitions from the CCI itself and the Alliance Digital India Foundation (ADIF), which is a coalition of Indian startups critical of Big Tech dominance. A bench led by Justice P.S. Narasimha has listed the matter for a detailed hearing in November. What has the CCI accused Google of? The CCI's investigation into Google began in 2020, sparked by complaints from app developers and industry groups who alleged that Google was using its market dominance in Android to push its own services and restrict fair competition. By 2022, the Commission concluded that Google had engaged in multiple anti-competitive practices. Chief among them was the mandatory use of the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) for in-app purchases on the Play Store. This meant that developers had to use Google's payment processing system, paying a commission that typically ranged between 15% and 30%, rather than integrating their own billing solutions. The regulator also found that Google exempted its own app YouTube from these billing requirements, giving them a cost advantage over competing services. This, the CCI argued, distorted the level-playing field and harmed both rival developers and consumers. In addition, the CCI highlighted that the Android licensing model required smartphone makers to pre-install Google's suite of apps — Search, Chrome, YouTube, and others — as a condition for access to the Google Play Store. According to the Commission, this bundling restricted consumer choice and suppressed innovation from alternative app providers. Based on these findings, the CCI imposed a fine of ₹936.44 crore on Google and issued a set of behavioural remedies, including directives to decouple Google's payment system from Play Store access, ensure transparency in billing data, and refrain from using such data to advantage its own services. What is Google's defence? Google rejected the CCI's conclusions, arguing that its practices were designed to enhance user experience, maintain security, and enable a sustainable business model for the Android ecosystem. The company maintained that Android is an open-source operating system, available for free to device manufacturers, and that OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) are not obligated to install Google's proprietary apps if they choose to license the core Android platform without Play Store access. It argued that pre-installing a set of Google apps was a matter of efficiency and user convenience, and did not prevent users from downloading competing apps. On the billing side, Google claimed that GPBS ensured safe and reliable transactions for users, helping to prevent fraud and reduce payment failures. The commission fees, it said, were consistent with industry standards and provided developers access to Google's global infrastructure, distribution reach, and regular security updates. Google also argued that exempting certain in-house services from GPBS was not anti-competitive but a recognition of differences in their business models. It pointed out that many leading Indian apps like PhonePe, Paytm, and Hotstar had grown successfully on Android, which shows that the market remained vibrant and competitive. What was the NCLAT's judgment? In March, the NCLAT delivered its ruling on Google's appeal against the CCI's 2022 order. The tribunal upheld several of the CCI's findings, agreeing that Google's mandatory billing policy and bundling of apps amounted to abuse of dominance. However, it reduced the financial penalty from ₹936.44 crore to ₹216.69 crore, reasoning that the original amount was disproportionate to the conduct in question. The NCLAT also struck down some of the CCI's behavioural directions, holding that certain remedies were either over-broad or lacked sufficient evidentiary basis. In May 2025, following a review petition, the tribunal reinstated two key directions that Google must be transparent about its billing data policies, and that it must not use such data to gain a competitive advantage for its own apps and services. This partial victory left all parties dissatisfied. Google sought a complete reversal of the findings, the CCI wanted its original penalties and remedies restored in full, and ADIF argued that the tribunal had gone too easy on Google. What's at stake now? The case raises fundamental questions about how much control a dominant platform like Android should have over the devices and services it supports, and to what extent regulators can intervene in the name of competition. For consumers, a ruling in favour of the CCI could mean more choice and potentially lower prices. If developers can bypass GPBS and use cheaper payment systems, they might pass on some of the savings to users. Greater transparency and restrictions on data use could also enhance privacy and fairness in app rankings and recommendations. However, industry observers warn that loosening Google's control could lead to more fragmentation in Android, with different devices offering inconsistent user experiences. For smartphone makers, the verdict could influence licensing costs and product flexibility. If the Supreme Court upholds the CCI's original remedies, OEMs might gain more leeway to pre-install competing services or experiment with alternative Android versions without losing access to the Play Store. This could be especially significant for smaller Indian brands that have struggled to differentiate themselves in a Google-centric ecosystem. For Indian startups and app developers, the case represents an opportunity to level the playing field against a global giant. ADIF has argued that Google's policies not only limit payment options but also give it an undue edge in promoting its own apps. A strong pro-CCI ruling could give local companies better bargaining power and distribution access. For Google, the stakes go beyond India. The country is one of its largest markets by user base, and an adverse ruling here could trigger similar regulatory demands in other jurisdictions. It could also force Google to reconsider its global Android business model, especially if courts require it to unbundle services or open its billing systems. What's the road ahead? The Supreme Court's hearings in November will likely examine both the legal interpretation of 'abuse of dominance' under Indian competition law and the economic realities of platform markets. Whatever the outcome, the decision will set an important precedent for how India balances innovation, consumer protection, and market fairness in the digital era. With Android powering over 95% of smartphones in the country, the Court's ruling will directly influence how hundreds of millions of Indians access apps, make payments, and use mobile services in the years to come. If the case ends with strong enforcement of the CCI's original directions, India could emerge as a leading example of robust digital market regulation outside the EU. On the other hand, if the Court sides with Google, it will reaffirm the status quo.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court has 'good news' for Google; agrees to hear company's appeal against...
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a series of cross-appeals from Google and other parties regarding a lower tribunal's ruling. The appeals were also made by the antitrust watchdog, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and other parties like the Alliance Digital India Foundation. They challenge a March order from the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which alleges that the tech giant abused its dominant position with its Play Store policies. According to a report by the Economic Times, the apex court has confirmed that it will hear the case in November. The appeals filed by Google and its related companies, which include Alphabet Inc, Google Ireland, Google India and Google India Digital Services, have challenged the NCLAT hearing that mostly aligned with CCI's findings of the company abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android mobile device ecosystem through its Play Store policies and engaged in unfair promotion of Google Pay, thereby violating Section 4(2)(e) of the Competition Act. Apart from this, Google is also appealing an NCLAT order from May that corrected a previous "inadvertent error". This corrected order reinstated two key directives from the CCI, mandating that the company disclose its data policies and stop using billing data for competitive gain. Why CCI penalised Google in October 2022 by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cargo Ship Meets Pirates - Watch What the Captain Does Next! Tips and Tricks Undo In October 2020, CCI imposed a penalty on Google, accusing it of abusing its dominant position in segments such as online search and the Android app store. The watchdog fined the company Rs 936 crore for enforcing the use of its Google Play Billing System for app-related purchases, while exempting its apps like YouTube from similar charges. The CCI also instructed Google to stop these practices and allow third-party billing options to ensure greater data transparency. The appellate tribunal later upheld the CCI's finding that Google imposed unfair and discriminatory conditions on developers by mandating the use of its billing system for paid apps and in-app purchases. However, it dismissed conclusions around the denial of market access and stifling innovation. The tribunal noted that Google's billing services made up less than 1% of UPI transactions, and said there wasn't enough evidence to prove it blocked market access or hindered technical growth. Additionally, the penalty was revised down from Rs 936.44 crore to Rs 216.69 crore, restricting it to revenues linked directly to the Play Store instead of Google's global earnings. The tribunal also dismissed certain aspects of the CCI's findings, which are now under challenge in the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, several Indian startups and industry bodies — including People Interactive India ( Mebigo Labs (Kuku FM), the Indian Broadcasting and Digital Foundation, and the Indian Digital Media Industry Foundation — had further urged the CCI to investigate Google's practices. Oppo Pad SE | Budget Android Tablet with Practical Features AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
