Latest news with #TelecommunicationsAct
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Internet companies say draft telecom cybersecurity rules to extend regulatory oversight, raise costs
NEW DELHI: Internet companies have cautioned that the Department of Telecommunications ' (DoT) proposed Draft Telecommunication (Telecom Cyber Security) Amendment Rules, 2025, could extend regulatory oversight to non-telecom licensed entities and raise costs, which will dent profits and impact ordinary consumers. The industry raised concerns that the proposed telecom cybersecurity amendments exceed the legislative scope of the Telecommunications Act, 2023, by creating a new category of entities – Telecommunication Identifier User Entities (TIUEs) – which cover a wide-range of non-telecom licensed digital service providers , such as e-commerce players, banks, food delivery, streaming, gaming, and others. The new draft rules, in their current form, will apply to all 'telecommunication identifier user entities' (TIUEs), or entities that use phone numbers to identify customers or their transactions. The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), in its submission to the telecom department, said that the inclusion of digital businesses under the proposed amendments was in 'violation of the scope of the Telecom Act and amounts to regulatory overreach'. IAMAI further said that the proposed creation of a Mobile Number Validation (MNV) platform and imposition of a verification fee (₹1.5/₹3) could prove to be a 'significant expense and compliance burden for digital businesses'. 'This might lead to increased service costs for end-users and reduced profit margins for businesses, particularly for start-ups and MSMEs (micro, small and medium enterprises) where such costs may be disproportionately felt,' it added. IT industry association NASSCOM , in a letter to Devendra Kumar Rai, joint secretary (telecom), DoT, said one of the most pressing concerns of digital companies is the proposed fee of ₹1.5-3 per verification request via the MNV platform, which is nearly 30 to 60 times higher than the prevailing cost of existing one-time password (OTP)-based verification, which is basically under ₹0.1 per request. 'For platforms handling large transaction volumes or serving cost-sensitive user segments, such a pricing structure is economically unsustainable. Moreover, the lack of clarity on whether the fee applies per user or per transaction further complicates cost projections,' National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) said in its letter, dated July 24, 2025. It warned that smaller players, startups, and high-volume platforms will be 'disproportionately impacted', creating barriers to innovation and hindering the government's goals around digital inclusion and ease of doing business. 'This may also discourage small businesses in adoption of verification technologies,' said NASSCOM. The Broadband India Forum (BIF), in its submission, said that the existing mechanisms, such as DoT's ICDR system and CEIR portal enable IMEI registration, verification, and blocking, noting that the draft telecom cybersecurity amendments add a 'duplicative step in IMEI allocation process for OEMs which would interfere with GSMA processes'. 'Do not operationalise the MNV platform, i.e., Rules 7A read with 2(cb) without a clear legal basis, defined purpose and privacy protections. If operationalised, MNV should be voluntary, especially due to the prohibitive costs of compliance impacting innovation and adoption of digital verification tools,' BIF said, adding that the provisions regarding fees should be reconsidered due to the absence of legislative sanction for the same. BIF's members include global Internet and technology giants including Google, Microsoft, Meta Platforms, Netflix, among others.
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
DoT's draft eSecurity rules draw fresh flak from telcos, experts
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills ETtech The Department of Telecommunications' (DoT) draft amendments to cybersecurity rules have drawn flak from multiple stakeholders, including telecom and tech players as well as privacy proposed rules, experts said, are too overarching and compromise the privacy of rules broaden the scope of traffic data collection and analysis, potentially bringing non-licensee entities like over-the-top (OTT) players, apps and any entity utilising a telecom identifier, like a mobile number, under the ambit of the government's oversight framework."While this aligns with the state's legitimate objectives of national security and cyber resilience under Sections 20-22 of the Telecommunications Act, it raises complex questions around proportionality and safeguards, especially in light of the Supreme Court's Puttaswamy judgment (in 2017) on privacy as a fundamental right," said Shreya Suri, partner at law firm CMS new draft rules, in its current form, will apply to all 'telecommunication identifier user entities' (TIUEs), or entities that use phone numbers to identify customers or their noted that the Telecommunications Act was meant to regulate licensed players and not OTTs, especially communication needs to be clarified if DoT can enlarge the mandate of the Act through the rules, they are also upset that the draft rules prescribe a fee for validation of a mobile number by authorised entities - Rs 1.5 per request for registered entities and Rs 3 for other entities. They said any fee should be left to market Bawa, partner and telecom leader at PwC India, said the draft rightly seeks to address systemic vulnerabilities across the digital ecosystem by extending regulatory oversight to TIUEs, including OTTs and digital platforms."However, the expanded scope and provisions for traffic data collection warrant greater clarity in definitions, risk-tiered compliance frameworks, and strong institutional safeguards to prevent regulatory overreach," he DoT has proposed tightening of cybersecurity rules, through which it can direct telecom operators and other entities like OTT players, banks, financial institutions, and ecommerce firms to verify mobile numbers or identities of users through a centralised step is aimed at curbing the growing menace of online fraud and spoofing. "The government will need to ensure that data collection remains purpose-limited, transparent, and proportionate to the stated security goals, so that these new powers don't inadvertently expand into unchecked surveillance," Suri of CMS IndusLaw DoT has proposed establishing a mobile number validation (MNV) platform by the central government, or an agency authorised by it, to ensure telecom cybersecurity and prevent security incidents. The government should also "issue directions to authorised entities and licensees as regards the form and manner in which to participate on such a platform," it said in the draft notification.
NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Private prosecution against former FNDC lawyer George Swanepoel won't include new allegations
In August 2020, Swanepoel allegedly sent two emails to the Companies Office saying the physical address of the pontoon Claydon had provided for his business was not a valid address. Claydon went to police seeking a prosecution alleging Swanepoel had submitted a form using false claims. Police declined to proceed with a prosecution so Claydon filed a private prosecution against Swanepoel in 2021, which, to date, has no trial date allocated. In the charging document offence description, Claydon alleges Swanepoel made fictitious messages designed to disrupt his family business, waste his time and harass him and his family. 'He actually did harass myself and my family causing extreme stress and did disrupt our business causing significant loss,' the charging document states. Initially, the District Court allowed the charge to proceed as a representative charge to which Swanepoel pleaded not guilty. But in 2023, Judge Philip Rzepecky amended the charge to focus solely on two emails sent on August 24, 2020, and gave Claydon permission to file additional charges based on other alleged communications. Claydon responded by submitting 20 new charges, ranging from further Telecommunications Act violations to allegations under the Crimes Act, Harassment Act, and Summary Offences Act. These included claims of blackmail, fraud, harassment, and attempts to pervert the course of justice. At a pre-trial hearing in September 2024, Judge Rzepecky ruled none of the new charges could be accepted for filing. He found they were 'fresh' charges and were not appropriately linked to the original incident. Twelve of the charges were time-barred, falling outside the six-month limitation period. The remaining eight were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to justify a trial. Claydon appealed the decision, claiming the judge failed to consider his personal circumstances, including difficulty in particularising dates and details. Justice David Johnstone rejected Claydon's appeal and agreed, in a recently released decision, the 20 new charges were fresh allegations. 'Mr Claydon suggests he was taken by surprise by a police decision not to prosecute Mr Swanepoel, and for that reason acted reasonably in filing only one, broadly framed, charge,' Justice Johnstone said in his decision. 'As a prosecutor, however, Mr Claydon bears the responsibility of bringing proceedings correctly, in accordance with the CPA. His own circumstances at the time he elected to pursue a private prosecution are irrelevant to the circumstances of Mr Swanepoel's alleged offences.' With the appeal denied, Claydon is left with one original charge to prosecute which is scheduled for a pre-trial hearing in September. Shannon Pitman is a Whangārei-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the Te Tai Tokerau region. She is of Ngāpuhi/ Ngāti Pūkenga descent and has worked in digital media for the past five years. She joined NZME in 2023.
The Spinoff
3 days ago
- Business
- The Spinoff
When big companies face criminal charges, what does it actually mean?
Noel Leeming is the latest big retailer to be criminally prosecuted by the Commerce Commission. But what do the charges actually mean, and will they make a difference to uncompetitive or unfair behaviour? Last week, the Commerce Commission announced it was filing criminal charges against Noel Leeming in the Auckland District Court. The government's consumer watchdog claimed the electronics chain, which is owned by The Warehouse, had breached the Fair Trading Act, particularly in its 'price match' guarantee; often, according to the commission, products from other companies will not be matched, despite Noel Leeming advertising that they will. 'It's crucial that businesses promoting any price match offer factor in the overall impression of the claims they make, and that all information is clear to customers,' said Anne Calliman, the deputy chair of the Commerce Commission, in a press release. It's not the first time the commission has filed criminal charges against retailers: Woolworths NZ, and some specific Pak'n'Save supermarkets (which are operated under a franchise model) were served with criminal charges last December for alleged breaches of the Fair Trading Act, while civil proceedings were filed against Foodstuffs North Island and Gilmours last week for alleged cartel conduct in breach of the Commerce Act. But what punishments can really be handed out? And does being served with criminal charges make a difference to how companies operate? What is the Commerce Commission? Great, starting with an easy one. The commission, also known as the CommComm (cute!), is New Zealand's competition, consumer and regulatory agency. An independent Crown entity, it's responsible for enforcing a few different laws. Under the Commerce Act, the commission can conduct market studies into competition, investigate mergers between businesses which may reduce competition and harm consumers, and recommend that particular goods or services are regulated if there is little competition. If people have been engaging in cartel conduct (ie price fixing or bid rigging), the commission can bring civil charges under the Commerce Act, with penalties including fines of up to $500,000 for an individual and $10 million (or more) for a company. As of 2021, it can also bring criminal charges under this law which could lead to imprisonment of up to seven years for individuals. Under the Fair Trading Act (FTA), the commission can investigate and prosecute companies and individuals for misleading pricing, including contract terms and pyramid schemes. It can file criminal charges through the District Court, with fines of up to $200,000 per offence for individuals and $600,000 per offence for companies. The commission also enforces some parts of the Telecommunications Act (how people are charged for internet and phone services), the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act (how Fonterra charges for raw milk) and and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (money lending). People can report companies for suspected breaches of these acts, and the commission can respond by investigating and potentially filing civil or criminal charges. So the Commerce Commission can't investigate or prosecute 'high prices' – it has to have a specific example of someone breaking the law? Yeah, exactly. It might feel wrong that butter costs $11 – but a breach of the Fair Trading Act would be a misleading special, like butter being advertised as on special for $11 if that was actually the standard non-discounted price, or a shopper being charged $11 when the price tag said $10. Examples of this gathered by independent organisation Consumer and submitted to the ComCom led to Pak'nSave and Woolworths receiving criminal charges. What's the difference between civil and criminal charges? Whether civil or criminal charges are brought will depend on the particular legislation and all the circumstances of the conduct. Where there is a choice between the two, the commission will consider a range of factors including the standard of proof required (civil cases must be proved on the 'balance of probabilities' standard, but criminal cases require proof 'beyond reasonable doubt'), the seriousness of the conduct and its consequences and whether the conduct was deliberate or especially blameworthy. Are there any recent examples of companies actually having to pay big fines? Several. Last year, Kiwibank was found to have overcharged 35,000 customers by more than $6.8m, in breach of the Fair Trading Act. Kiwibank found the issues in its system and turned itself into the commission, which brought 21 criminal charges and the bank was fined $1.5m, as well as repaying the customers $9.2m to remediate. In a civil case last year, meanwhile, Foodstuffs North Island was fined $3.25m under the Commerce Act for using land covenants to block its rivals, and in 2023, One NZ copped a $3.6m fine under the Fair Trading Act for misleading customers about fibre broadband. Has the Commerce Commission ever actually sent someone to prison? Not yet, but in December last year, the High Court handed down its first criminal sentence for charges brought by the Commerce Commission under the Commerce Act, to Manesh Kumar, who rigged bids for NZTA projects. He received a sentence o f six months of community detention and 200 hours of community service. Despite the term 'criminal charges', this doesn't usually lead to lawyers yelling at each other across a courtroom, holding up different pictures of price specials available at supermarkets. Many Commerce Commission cases are settled, with the company at fault agreeing to pay a fine and not engage in the bad behaviour again. I've lost count of the articles I've read about how unfair and expensive the grocery sector is. Can the Commerce Commission make much of a difference to the fact that getting a few things for dinner always ends up costing $80? After a market study in 2022 showed that New Zealand needed more competition in the grocery sector to get better prices, the Grocery Industry Competition Act was passed by the government. Since 2023, the Commerce Commission has had a specific grocery commissioner. Yet the high prices, and the depressing headlines, continue. The commission has said that the grocery sector is one of its priorities for 2024/25. It hasn't just focused on supermarkets, but also alternatives, like filing criminal proceedings under the FTA against meal subscription company Hello Fresh for not telling customers that accepting a voucher meant they were resubscribing to the service. It's said the rules need to change so that smaller companies that sell groceries have more alternatives. But because there is so little competition in the sector, all these court cases and call-outs have made little difference. The Commerce Commission can only regulate the commercial sector as it is, not change the system as a whole. Finance minister Nicola Willis has said that breaking up the duopoly of Woolworths and Foodstuffs might be an option. 'Significant action may be required to foster genuine competition,' she said in March. For now, however, criminal charges or otherwise, the status quo remains.
CNET
7 days ago
- Business
- CNET
Gig Speeds for Every American? Trump FCC Moves to Drop One of the Group's Most Ambitious Goals
One of the federal government's most ambitious broadband targets may soon be abandoned. On August 7, the FCC will vote on a proposal to drop its goal of gig speeds for every American. In March last year, the Democratic-led group voted to raise the definition of minimum broadband speeds from 25Mbps download and 3Mbps upload speed to 100/20Mbps. It also set a more ambitious long-term goal of increasing the benchmark to 1,000Mbps download and 500Mbps upload speed. Trump's pick for FCC chair, Brendan Carr, has consistently advocated for a 'technology neutral' approach to broadband subsidies. There's only one broadband technology that can currently reach 1,000/500Mbps, and that's fiber internet. Carr's proposal repeatedly points to the previous, Democrat-led FCC's goals as outside the bounds of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which requires the FCC to 'encourage the deployment' of telecommunications service 'on a reasonable and timely basis' to all Americans. "Not only is a long-term goal not mentioned in section 706, but maintaining such a goal risks skewing the market by unnecessarily potentially picking technological winners and losers," Carr's plan says. Locating local internet providers While Carr was critical of the increase to the minimum broadband threshold when it passed last year, there is no mention of rolling back the 100/20Mbps requirement. Changes in how we measure broadband progress Another notable departure from the 2024 report is how the FCC could measure broadband deployment going forward. Last year, for example, the Commission determined that 7% of Americans did not have access to 100/20Mbps speeds. Carr's proposal argues that this is a flawed way to measure progress toward closing the digital divide. It all hinges on one key sentence used in Section 706: 'The Commission shall determine whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.' Carr's proposal argues that the FCC has been (wrongly) measuring where broadband has been deployed already, not where it is in the process of being deployed. 'We believe that the prior Report's binary interpretation of the threshold for issuing a passing or failing grade in the ultimate section 706 finding effectively read the 'reasonable and timely' language out of the statute,' Carr's proposal says. 'That interpretation seemingly found anything short of 100% was insufficient to warrant a passing grade and thus disregarded Congress's use of the present progressive tense in 'is being deployed.'' The interpretation of that phrase could have huge repercussions. Section 706 requires that if broadband is not being deployed to all Americans, the FCC must 'accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition.' With $42.5 billion in federal funding through the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program currently being deployed to states, the FCC can reasonably argue that broadband is in the process of being deployed to all Americans. If the question was whether all Americans have access to broadband speeds -- as the Democratic-led FCC previously interpreted -- the answer would be a resounding no, and the FCC would be required to take concrete action to achieve that goal. Broadband affordability is no longer an FCC goal It's easy to miss the affordability aspect in Carr's proposal, but it could have far-reaching impacts. It says that the previous FCC read 'several extraneous universal service criteria' into section 706. In a footnote to that sentence, it defines these criteria as 'deployment, adoption, affordability, availability and equitable access.' In last year's report, the FCC determined that, 'The legislative history of section 706 further supports the view that Congress expects us to examine more than physical availability, and explicitly identifies affordability in describing the goals of section 706.' Carr vehemently disagreed with this interpretation, writing in a dissenting statement, 'That cannot be right. For one, those terms appear nowhere in Section 706.' Most broadband experts agree that cost is the main reason people don't have home internet, not a lack of availability. That was borne out when 23 million Americans enrolled in the Affordable Connectivity Program, a federal subsidy to help low-income families pay for internet that expired one year ago. "As folks in this space like to say, if it's not affordable, it's not accessible," Sean Gonsalvez, a director of communication with the advocacy group The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, told me in a previous interview. A 2021 Pew Research Center survey found that one in five people who don't have a broadband subscription cited cost as the main reason -- the highest of any answer and well above the number who said service isn't available. Another study found that "for every American without broadband service available, up to twice as many have service available but still don't subscribe." Even though affordability was outlined as a goal in last year's report, the previous FCC did not make much progress on the issue. Instead, it's been largely left up to states to legislate. In New York, for example, internet providers are required to offer low-income residents plans as low as $15 per month. In mid-December, the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the law. One month later, AT&T announced it would be removing access to its AT&T Internet Air service in New York.
