Net neutrality, 5G innovation can coexist

At its simplest, network slicing allows telecom operators to create multiple virtual networks on a common physical infrastructure, each engineered for specific requirements — ultra-low latency for remote surgery, high reliability for emergency communications, or secure deterministic performance for industrial automation and other special data-intensive applications of modern times.

Critics often portray slicing as a threat to net neutrality — a concern not only misplaced but also against consumer interest. When examined through the lens of existing Indian and global regulatory principles, the picture becomes considerably clearer: network slicing and net neutrality can coexist, provided clear safeguards are available. Indisputably, India has one of the best consumer-protective regulatory frameworks in the world.

The first safeguard is non-discrimination within internet access services (IAS).

India’s licensing framework rightly prohibits differential treatment of internet traffic based on content, application, sender, receiver, protocol, or user equipment. This principle is inviolable. Any network slice delivering general internet access must therefore comply fully with neutrality obligations.

An operator cannot create “premium internet lanes” for selected platforms, enterprises, applications, or a class of subscribers based on their tariff plan, within the open internet. However, operators may offer specialised connectivity products to similarly placed entities on transparent and non-discriminatory norms. All retail market public customers should get the same best-effort internet service/treatment like the original founding fathers designed the Internet to be.

General Internet and Specialised Services

The second safeguard lies in the distinction between internet access and specialised services. This distinction is crucial — and often poorly understood in public debate. Modern digital systems increasingly require performance characteristics that the traditional best-effort internet was never designed to guarantee. Remote robotic surgery, autonomous manufacturing systems, private or CNPN 5G (strictly excluding non-retail usage), connected ambulances, smart grids, mission-critical public safety networks, and advanced/massive IoT applications in industry as well as agriculture, all demand deterministic levels of latency, reliability, security, and availability. These are not merely “faster internet services”. They are functionally distinct services.

This is precisely why regulatory frameworks across India, the European Union (EU), and the UK permit specialised services optimised for specific technical requirements, provided they are not substitutes for general internet access. In such situations, network slicing does not undermine neutrality; rather, it enables the creation of dedicated service layers necessary for advanced digital infrastructure.

Preventing Quality Degradation

The third — and perhaps most important — safeguard is that specialised slices must never degrade the quality of the open internet. This principle prevents the emergence of a two-tier internet in which ordinary users suffer degraded service while premium customers enjoy privileged access. Global regulators have consistently maintained this position. The EU’s open internet framework, Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications guidelines, and Ofcom’s regulatory approach all converge on one principle: specialised services are permissible only if they do not impair general internet access services.

Network slicing is acceptable when it creates technically distinct services outside the scope of ordinary internet access. It becomes problematic only when it is used to create commercial hierarchies within the internet itself. If a network slice effectively functions as a superior version of ordinary internet access — offering faster browsing, prioritised streaming, preferential app delivery, or paid fast-lane access — then it ceases to qualify as a specialised service. It enters the territory of prohibited prioritisation. The policy objective, therefore, is not to prohibit slicing, but to prevent its misuse.

Importantly, India does not need an entirely new regulatory architecture to address this issue. The foundations already exist within the current licensing and net neutrality framework.

What is required instead is a clear understanding and disciplined implementation of three basic principles: neutrality obligations must apply fully within internet access services; specialised slices must remain genuinely non-substitutable for internet access; and such slices must not degrade baseline internet quality for ordinary users.

With these conditions, network slicing ceases to be a threat to neutrality and instead becomes an essential capability for the digital economy. Indeed, prohibiting slicing altogether would carry serious consequences for India’s tech ambitions.
5G was never designed solely for faster smartphone downloads but to be the First G going outside Telecom. Its transformative value lies in enabling Industry 4.0, modern agriculture, intelligent transport systems, telemedicine, smart manufacturing, critical communications, and machine-to-machine automation. Many of these applications simply cannot function reliably on best-effort internet architecture alone. India’s digital aspirations — from advanced manufacturing to connected healthcare and public safety systems — will increasingly depend on precisely the kinds of differentiated technical capabilities that network slicing can provide.

The challenge for policymakers, therefore, is not whether slicing should exist, but ensuring that it remains an infrastructure capability rather than becoming a mechanism for commercial discrimination within the open internet. That balance is both achievable and necessary.

Correctly deployed within clearly defined regulatory boundaries, slicing is not merely permissible. It is indispensable for unlocking the full potential of 5G and future digital networks in India.

With research inputs by Neha Hathiari

Disclaimer: The views expressed are the author’s own and do not reflect the official policy or position of Financial Express.