For nearly a decade, India’s internet regime has rested on a simple promise. Every packet of internet traffic should be treated equally. Whether a user is watching Netflix, scrolling Instagram, joining a video call, playing a game or running a factory or a health care device or a deep-tech startup, telecom operators are not supposed to differentiate on internet speed.
But now a major shift might occur in how Indians experience the internet.
Also Read: Government reviews net neutrality rules to enable 5G network slicing services
ET reported today that the government is reviewing net neutrality rules and has sought Trai's views on allowing telecom operators to offer differentiated connectivity through 5G network slicing. If the review results in policy changes, mobile users may eventually be able to pay extra for lower-latency gaming, enterprises could buy guaranteed network performance for factories and hospitals, and telecom companies would gain a powerful new way to monetise their 5G investments. From a single common highway, the internet might morph into a network with multiple lanes, speeds and price points.
With 5G networks becoming more sophisticated and capable of creating customised virtual networks on demand, the government is examining whether rules framed in 2018 are too rigid for a world of smart factories, connected vehicles, cloud gaming and remote healthcare.
From equal internet to specialised networks
Net neutrality emerged globally as a safeguard against internet providers discriminating between different kinds of online traffic. The concern was if telecom operators controlled the pipes, they could potentially slow some services, prioritise others or charge online platforms for preferential treatment.
India formally adopted net neutrality rules in 2018 after recommendations from Trai. The rules prohibited blocking, throttling or preferential treatment of internet traffic. In practice, this meant that a telecom operator could not decide that one video platform should load faster than another or that customers should get free access to selected apps while competing services remained chargeable.
The internet was viewed as a common highway where everybody travelled under the same rules.
That highway analogy, however, becomes less useful in a 5G world. Unlike previous generations of mobile technology, 5G networks can be partitioned into multiple virtual lanes, each designed for a different purpose. The technology is known as network slicing. Instead of running a single uniform network, operators can create separate slices with different levels of speed, latency, reliability and capacity. A slice serving a hospital could behave very differently from one serving a gaming platform or an industrial robot.
Why the government is reopening the debate
The immediate reason is the growing ambiguity around how network slicing fits within existing net neutrality rules.
Officials have referred the matter to Trai for recommendations on possible changes or clarifications. The government’s argument is that the current framework was designed before large-scale 5G deployment and before slicing became commercially viable. While there is no explicit ban on network slicing, offering differentiated connectivity through slicing could be interpreted as preferential treatment under existing norms. A telecom operator giving faster access to one video platform than another would clearly violate net neutrality principles. But what about a dedicated network slice for a hospital that requires guaranteed response times? Or a factory that needs ultra-reliable machine-to-machine communication? Or a gamer willing to pay extra for lower latency?
These are not hypothetical use cases anymore. Telecom operators are increasingly trying to commercialise such capabilities, forcing regulators to decide where specialised services end and discriminatory treatment begins.
However, the government appears keen to preserve the open internet while creating room for advanced 5G applications. Officials have indicated that any revised framework would include safeguards against "walled gardens" and paid prioritisation of specific content or websites.
The Airtel trigger
The debate moved from theory to reality in May when Bharti Airtel launched "Priority Postpaid", a service built on 5G slicing technology, which was later rebranded.
The offering promises postpaid subscribers a more consistent network experience during congestion by allocating network resources differently. Airtel says the service does not prioritise any particular app or website. Instead, it prioritises the customer’s connection itself when the network is crowded. The company argues that the service remains compliant with net neutrality because all internet content continues to be treated equally once the customer is on the network.
Also Read: Telecom industry divided on Airtel's 5G priority plan
Critics argue that if one category of subscribers receives preferential treatment during congestion, the principle of equal access is already being diluted. Supporters counter that telecom operators have long offered differentiated services through leased lines, enterprise connectivity and premium broadband plans. They see network slicing as the mobile equivalent of those offerings.
The service is currently being examined by regulators and the Department of Telecommunications. In many ways, Airtel’s launch has become India’s first real-world test case for the next phase of net neutrality.
Why telecom companies want the change
For operators, the economics is a compelling reason. India’s telecom industry has invested billions of dollars in spectrum purchases, fibre deployment and 5G rollout. But average revenue per user remains among the lowest in major markets. Telecom companies have long argued that they cannot justify endless network investments if every connection is treated identically and monetised identically.
Network slicing offers a way out. Instead of selling only generic mobile data plans, operators can sell premium network characteristics.
A hospital could pay for guaranteed reliability. A port operator could buy dedicated connectivity for automated cranes. A manufacturer could run a private industrial network inside a factory. A gaming company could purchase low-latency connectivity for competitive players. A logistics operator could connect thousands of sensors and vehicles through a specialised slice.
Basically, telecom operators want to move from selling raw bandwidth to selling performance guarantees.
Why India may actually need it
India's digital economy is evolving beyond consumer internet use. Factories are becoming increasingly automated. Warehouses are deploying connected sensors. Airports and ports are investing in automation. Utilities are rolling out smart infrastructure. Healthcare providers are experimenting with connected devices and remote diagnostics.
A robot arm in a factory does not need gigabit speeds. It needs certainty that commands will arrive instantly. A remote medical system cannot afford network delays at critical moments. An autonomous industrial vehicle may require continuous connectivity even when thousands of people nearby are streaming videos.
Traditional mobile networks struggle to guarantee these requirements because every user shares the same pool of resources. Network slicing allows operators to reserve dedicated resources for specific applications without building entirely separate physical networks.
That is one reason why many policymakers increasingly view the issue as industrial policy as much as telecom regulation.
The risk of a two-tier internet
Net neutrality advocates worry that a seemingly narrow exemption for specialised services could gradually evolve into a fully-fledged system of preferential access.
The nightmare scenario is a two-tier internet. Large companies pay for premium treatment while smaller firms remain on standard networks. Established platforms gain advantages that startups cannot afford. Consumers are nudged toward services that perform better simply because those services have deeper pockets. The original net neutrality movement emerged precisely because regulators feared operators could use control over networks to shape competition online.
There is also a practical issue. If premium slices become highly profitable, what incentive exists to maintain high-quality service on standard internet connections? Regulators will need to ensure that specialised services supplement rather than degrade the open internet. Researchers examining network slicing have argued that strong safeguards are necessary to preserve competition and neutrality principles as slicing expands.
How the rest of the world is handling it
India is far from alone in revisiting these questions. The United States has effectively moved away from a uniform federal net neutrality regime. A US appeals court blocked the Biden administration's attempt to restore federal net neutrality rules, leaving a patchwork where some states maintain their own protections while no nationwide framework currently exists.
Europe has taken a different path. The European Union continues to maintain open internet rules but is actively working on detailed guidance for 5G network slicing. European regulators are not treating slicing as inherently incompatible with net neutrality. Instead, they are trying to clarify how specialised services can coexist with open internet obligations. Recent consultations by BEREC, the bloc’s telecom regulators' body, focus precisely on providing regulatory certainty for slicing-based services while preserving core neutrality principles.
China has aggressively promoted network slicing as part of its industrial 5G strategy. Singapore and Malaysia have also encouraged commercial deployments. The UK has permitted experimentation with differentiated 5G services. In most of these markets, the debate has shifted away from whether slicing should exist and towards defining the limits of its use.
The question Trai must answer
The real challenge for Indian regulators is drawing a line that is technologically relevant and commercially workable. Few policymakers want telecom operators deciding which websites should load faster. At the same time, few dispute that a connected factory and an Instagram feed have fundamentally different network requirements.
The solution may ultimately lie in separating content discrimination from connectivity differentiation. Regulators could permit specialised network slices for defined use cases while prohibiting preferential treatment for particular apps, platforms or websites. That sounds simple on paper, but in practice it will determine how India’s internet evolves over the next decade.
The original net neutrality debate was about keeping the internet open. The next debate is about whether an open internet can coexist with multiple grades of speed, latency, reliability and prices. As 5G matures and future 6G networks emerge, that question will only become harder to avoid.
