[Pulkit Verma is a third-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at ILC, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. In this piece, the author interrogates whether India’s net neutrality framework is equipped to regulate consumer-focused 5G network slicing. The piece argues that Airtel’s Priority Postpaid service reveals a regulatory gap by prioritising users rather than internet content, warranting a regulatory framework that balances both innovation and network neutrality.]
Introduction
The advent of fifth-generation (5G) cellular networks in India is transforming the telecommunications sector, promising ultra-low latency, massive system capacity, and unprecedented connectivity. However, this technological advancement has led to a conflict regarding digital rights and network equality. At the centre of this dispute is Bharti Airtel’s recently introduced ‘Priority Postpaid’ service. By leveraging 5G “network slicing”, Airtel aims to offer its premium postpaid customers a highly consistent and stable network experience, completely bypassing the traffic of network congestion.
This move is not devoid of debates and criticisms. While telecom operators view network slicing as a mechanism to monetise their massive 5G infrastructure investments, from a digital rights perspective it is concerning that prioritising premium mobile users compromises the principles of net neutrality. This piece argues that Airtel’s Priority Postpaid service exposes a regulatory gap in India’s net neutrality framework because existing rules prohibit content-based discrimination but provide little guidance on user-based network prioritisation. It contends that TRAI should address this gap by adopting a regulatory framework that permits innovation in network slicing while safeguarding equal internet access through appropriate legal and technical safeguards.
The Fundamentals: 5G Network Slicing and Net Neutrality
Before assessing whether Airtel’s Priority Postpaid service fits within India’s net neutrality framework, it is necessary to understand how network slicing differs from conventional mobile network management. According to the ITU’s definition – network slice is a logical network that provides specific network capabilities and network characteristics. In conventional 4G LTE architectures, the network is largely rigid; all user devices have to compete for a single, shared pool of bandwidth and network resources. 5G network slicing alters this mechanism through technologies Software-Defined Networking (SDN) and Network Function Virtualization (NFV). These technologies allow telecom operators to logically partition a single physical network infrastructure into multiple, self-contained virtual networks, or “slices”.
Whereas, net neutrality is the foundational legal principle dictating that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must treat all internet traffic equally, without discrimination, restriction, or interference based on the content, application, or user category. In India, though there is no specific legislation governing net neutrality it is primarily enforced by TRAI.
The Conundrum: Is Network Slicing Innovation or Discrimination?
It is a point of contention that dedicating a network slice to paying postpaid customers inherently creates a “fast lane”, thereby violating net neutrality. It is also pertinent to note that 5G network slicing is distinct from traditional premium broadband plans where conventional broadband plans sell a higher maximum speed limit on a shared network, network slicing dynamically reserves capacity. Therefore, during periods of peak congestion, a user on Airtel’s dedicated slice is granted preferential access, while the remaining standard 5G subscribers may experience degraded service, slower speeds, or higher latency as they compete for an artificially restricted pool of leftover bandwidth.
However, Airtel defends its service as fully compliant with India’s net neutrality rules. The company’s primary legal defence is that its network slicing is strictly “content-neutral” and application-agnostic. Within the dedicated postpaid slice, Airtel does not prioritise or block any specific application or website; whether a user is streaming a video or reading an email, all data packets within that slice are treated equally. This application-agnostic prioritisation operates in a regulatory grey area that older net neutrality frameworks did not anticipate.
Regulatory Scrutiny: Where Does TRAI Stand?
Showing preemptiveness the regulatory authorities have already begun to scrutinize Airtel’s new service, where a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology initiated a review to determine if priority postpaid plans compromise the net neutrality rights of crores of prepaid mobile users. Competing operators like Reliance Jio have also pushed back, arguing that only the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and TRAI should permit such services after exhaustive technical examination to ensure they do not undermine network equity.
In response, TRAI also launched an assessment of Airtel’s service. TRAI’s preliminary findings indicated no immediate violation of net neutrality norms, largely because the service does not engage in content blocking or specific application throttling. However, the regulator has not closed the investigation. TRAI is currently conducting a detailed technical review, demanding extensive data from Airtel to conclusively determine whether ‘slicing a chunk’ of the network to guarantee an enhanced experience for premium customers mathematically results in a deterioration of Quality of Service (QoS) for the remaining standard 5G subscribers.
The uncertainty surrounding Airtel’s service reflects a broader regulatory problem. Neither TRAI’s existing framework nor parliamentary scrutiny has definitively resolved how consumer network slicing should be assessed. But, India is not alone in grappling with this issue. Therefore, drawing inspiration from international regulatory stands could be a way forward.
Global Perspectives on Network Slicing
Comparative regulatory approaches show how other jurisdictions have attempted to reconcile network slicing with net neutrality, offering useful guidance for India’s developing framework. In the European Union, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) regulates slicing under the Open Internet Regulation (OIR). The EU framework allows network slicing under a Specialised Services (SpS) exception. SpS allows operators to offer services requiring guaranteed quality levels that cannot be met over standard internet. However, European consumer groups’ contention is that allowing telecom companies to offer premium consumer fast lanes under the SpS exemption would undermine net neutrality, asserting that SpS should be strictly limited to critical applications like telemedicine, not general web browsing.
In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 2024 reinstated net neutrality rules but left the classification of network slicing highly ambiguous, declining to definitively label it as either a prohibited “fast lane” or an exempt “non-BIAS” data service. However, In re: MCP No. 185 (Open Internet Rule) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down the FCC’s net neutrality rules entirely, diminishing federal restrictions and allowing U.S. operators to freely monetise network slicing.
Proposed Practical Regulatory Solutions for India
As TRAI navigates this uncharted territory, a total ban on network slicing would stunt 5G innovation, while unregulated slicing could affect the open internet. To balance operator monetisation with digital rights, TRAI should implement the following practical regulatory solutions:
- Establish a Strict Distinction Between “Specialised Services” and “Internet Access Services” TRAI should adopt a regulatory framework akin to the European OIR model, creating a clear legal distinction between General Internet Access Services (IAS) and Specialised Services (SpS). Slices dedicated to mission-critical applications that objectively require ultra-low latency or absolute reliability (e.g., autonomous driving, remote surgery, smart grid management) should be classified as Specialised Services and exempted from strict net neutrality parity. Conversely, slices intended for general consumer internet access like Airtel’s Priority Postpaid must be classified as IAS. For IAS slices, operators must be strictly prohibited from engaging in content-based or application-based discrimination.
- Enforce the No Material Detriment Principle The most significant threat of consumer network slicing is the degradation of the standard network. TRAI must mandate the No Material Detriment principle, explicitly requiring that the provisioning of a priority slice must not hamper the availability, speed, or general quality of the baseline internet access provided to standard (prepaid) users. If an operator wishes to deploy a premium consumer slice, the burden of proof must lie on the operator to demonstrate mathematically that they possess “sufficient capacity” to support the slice without dismantling the resources necessary for standard users.
- Cell-Level QoS Auditing To enforce the No Material Detriment rule, macroscopic regulatory reporting is insufficient. TRAI recently modernised its QoS framework via The Standards of Quality of Service of Access (Wirelines and Wireless) and Broadband Service Regulations, 2024. These modernized standards shifted monitoring from quarterly averages to monthly cycles, and more importantly, mandated cell-level data collection using percentile-based methodologies (rather than simple averages) to accurately identify pockets of peak-hour network congestion. TRAI should leverage this new digital reporting infrastructure to continuously audit Airtel’s network. If cell-level data reveals that standard 5G users are experiencing a surge in packet drop rates or latency specifically when the Priority Postpaid slice is under heavy load, TRAI must intervene and compel the operator to either expand total physical capacity or suspend the slice.
- Mandate Algorithmic and Technical Transparency At last, TRAI should oversee absolute transparency regarding how traffic is managed across slices. Operators should be mandated to publish the objective, neutral technical parameters (such as the 5G QoS Class Identifiers) used to manage traffic. This ensures that priority routing is handled at the network protocol layer in an application-agnostic manner, preventing operators from secretly forming cartels to increase competitors’ traffic.
Conclusion
Airtel’s Priority Postpaid plan represents the inevitable collision between next-generation 5G capabilities and established net neutrality laws. While dynamic resource allocation through network slicing is a legitimate technological advancement, it must not become a loophole for creating a tiered internet where standard users are relegated to a degraded “slow lane”. By implementing stringent QoS auditing, enforcing the no material detriment rule, and restricting specialised exemptions to genuinely critical use cases, TRAI can successfully safeguard the open internet while allowing India’s digital infrastructure to evolve.