Why Jio wants flexible net neutrality for 5G

Reliance Jio’s appeal to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) spotlights how 5G-era capabilities are colliding with legacy rules built for best-effort internet access.

5G network slicing and QoS-backed SLAs

5G standalone networks change the service model. Operators can carve the network into slices with distinct latency, reliability, and throughput characteristics validated by 3GPP standards. That enables ultra-reliable low-latency communications for factory automation, connected vehicles, remote operations, and mission-critical services. It also enables differentiated quality for cloud gaming, broadcast-like video, and IoT control loops when combined with edge computing and time-sensitive networking. Jio’s position is that treating all traffic identically under a single “internet access” umbrella can inhibit these new uses. A ruleset that preserves open internet principles for consumers yet explicitly allows specialized services with assured QoS for enterprises is what the company seeks.

India’s net neutrality rules and 5G pain points

India’s framework—rooted in TRAI’s 2017 recommendations and implemented via Department of Telecommunications (DoT) license amendments in 2018—prohibits blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization for internet access services. It also contemplates “specialized services,” but left room for interpretation in the 5G context. Operators argue that modern traffic management, lawful differentiation for enterprise SLAs, and network slicing need clearer guardrails. Without that clarity, 5G monetization tied to guaranteed performance, exposure of network capabilities, and API-based QoS on-demand remains constrained.

Global policy: open internet plus specialized 5G services

Major markets are updating guidance to protect open internet access while enabling 5G-era innovation under strict conditions.

Europe’s BEREC rules on 5G slicing and specialized services

Europe’s Open Internet Regulation has long allowed specialized services when they are not a substitute for internet access and when the open internet is not degraded. Updated BEREC guidelines have clarified how operators can deliver QoS-assured services—including 5G slicing—if they meet transparency, non-discrimination, and capacity safeguards. The thrust: block no lawful content and avoid content-based discrimination on the public internet, but allow distinct services with explicit performance commitments where technically necessary.

US and UK: reasonable management with open internet safeguards

In the United States, the FCC has reinstated federal open internet rules with a focus on no blocking or throttling and transparency, while still permitting reasonable network management and non-internet-access services outside the broadband definition. In the United Kingdom, Ofcom has proposed more flexibility for innovation, recognizing content-agnostic traffic management, clearer treatment of specialized services, and updated guidance on zero-rating, provided end users are not unfairly restricted. Both regulators signal that differentiated performance can coexist with neutrality if it is transparent, justified, and not anti-competitive.

What this means for India’s 5G net neutrality policy

These moves provide a template for TRAI and DoT: preserve strong open internet protections for consumers, while codifying what constitutes a specialized service in a 5G setting. That includes conditions on substitutability, capacity provisioning, and disclosures. It also means aligning with standards such as 3GPP slicing and ETSI MEC, and defining how APIs expose QoS without favoring specific content or platforms.

Key trade-offs TRAI must resolve

The policy challenge is to separate innovation-enabling differentiation from anti-competitive behavior in a practical, enforceable way.

Defining specialized services vs. internet access

TRAI will need crisp tests to determine when a service requires assured QoS and is not a functional substitute for general internet access. Think URLLC for industrial robotics, smart grid protection, emergency communications, and connected vehicle safety. These should be allowed with performance guarantees, but not used to steer mainstream consumer video or general web traffic into paid fast lanes.

Transparency and non-discrimination for 5G slices

Operators must disclose QoS parameters, admission controls, and potential impacts on the public internet. Non-discrimination should be enforced in content-agnostic ways: enterprise A and enterprise B get equivalent options for comparable needs, and the same performance class is available to all eligible customers on equal terms. Publishing KPIs and independent audits can strengthen trust.

Zero-rating, paid prioritization, and fair share

Zero-rating and paid prioritization remain sensitive. Many jurisdictions discourage selective zero-rating that distorts competition, while allowing offers that are application-agnostic. The global “fair share” debate—network fees from large traffic generators—continues, with mixed views across regions. In India, any move here should be carefully calibrated to avoid harming startups and content choice, while examining sustainable cost recovery mechanisms for rural coverage and 5G investment.

Safeguards for startups and public interest

Clear exceptions for public safety and emergency services should remain. For the broader ecosystem, guardrails should ensure SMEs and startups can access the same QoS classes, interfaces, and commercial terms as large platforms. Strict prohibitions on blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization within consumer internet access should be reaffirmed.

Strategic implications for telcos, OTTs, and enterprises

A calibrated framework opens monetization paths for 5G while forcing disciplined transparency and engineering practices.

Operators: monetize 5G with compliance by design

Build product catalogs around standardized network slices, publish SLAs, and expose capabilities via secure APIs aligned with GSMA Open Gateway and CAMARA. Engineer capacity so specialized services do not degrade public internet performance. Implement content-agnostic policies, robust reporting, and lifecycle governance for slices. Alignment with 3GPP Release 17/18 features and TM Forum compliance will streamline audits and partnerships.

Enterprises: plan for QoS-backed connectivity

In RFPs, specify latency, jitter, reliability, and coverage targets; define fallback behavior; and assess options for on-premises 5G, MEC integration, and interconnect with cloud regions. Use standardized performance classes where possible to maintain portability across operators. Budget for observability and compliance reporting, especially in regulated sectors.

OTTs and cloud: prepare for new interconnect and APIs

Expect offers for QoS-on-demand and edge placement, exposed through common APIs. Keep deployments content-agnostic and transparent to avoid regulatory risk. Evaluate peering, caching, and MEC strategies to meet performance needs without triggering prioritization concerns. Participation in NGMN, GSMA, and IETF working groups can shape implementable, neutral solutions.

What to watch next

The next six to twelve months will determine how India aligns with global practice while protecting its open internet commitments.

TRAI consultation and DoT rulemaking

Watch for TRAI’s consultation outcomes and any DoT amendments to license conditions that clarify specialized services, network slicing, transparency, and zero-rating. Expect phased guidance, testbeds, and potential compliance templates to reduce ambiguity and accelerate enterprise adoption.

Standards and alliances shaping implementation

3GPP enhancements to slicing and NEF exposure, ETSI MEC interoperability, GSMA Open Gateway API maturity, and Ofcom/BEREC guidance updates will influence India’s approach. Aligning with these will let operators like Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Vodafone Idea scale enterprise 5G offerings while staying onside of neutrality principles.