 |
|
BSNL, VSNL bully
Netizens, prevent sending bulk mail
Ironically, the message began with "Dear Users. BSNL in its endeavour to provide reliable Internet (Sancharnet) services is continuously upgrading and enhancing its service offerings." After such a lofty beginning the message went on to announce that the freedom to send e-mail was being curtailed and the services had been downgraded. Two key restrictions have been imposed on the users. Firstly, the maximum number of recipients per mail has been restricted to 10 in any mail. In other words sender can define maximum of 10 recipients in To, Cc and Bcc combined. The second restriction is that the attachment size with any mail has been limited to 1 MB. (Number of recipients x size of attachment=1024 KByte=1 MB). For example, if mail is being sent to one recipient then the maximum attachment size will be 1 MB and if mail is being sent to two recipients then the maximum attachment size will be 512 KB. As if the two restrictions were not sufficient, the message goes on to add, "We would also take this opportunity to request all users, not to send any unsolicited commercial mails to others. In case BSNL receives complaint against any user with regards to spamming, the account is liable to be terminated immediately." This practice of curtailing the rights of subscribers is not unique to BSNL. The other giant in the field, Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (VSNL), also follows similar practices. The only difference is that VSNL has not bothered to inform its consumers about its self-prescribed rules. VSNL does not permit more than 15 recipients in a mail. One does not know the rules that they follow regarding message size. Will someone please tell BSNL and VSNL that they are service providers? As service providers, BSNL and VSNL have a duty to protect the interests of their customers. They need not (and must not) go about imposing unnecessary and illegal restrictions on their customers. It would have been ideal if BSNL and VSNL could provide support to their Internet users to enable them to sort out their incoming mail on the basis of some predefined rules, which each user may set. It would also be ideal if a user could decide that any e-mail containing obscene four letter words should not be downloaded or that attachments should be downloaded only after prior permission of user. The Internet consumers need better protection from viruses that travel on the Net. Large ISPs can easily install antivirus software on their servers that could detect a possibly infected attachment and warn the recipient before downloading. Similarly, ISPs could ensure that e-mail messages containing obnoxious sexual messages are marked with a warning sign. Any such measure would have protected the interests of customers but instead of taking such steps, BSNL and VSNL are acting against contractual obligations and interests of consumers. It may well be argued that restrictions imposed by them amount to deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act Talking of legalities, it should be noted that sending unsolicited commercial mail is not a crime. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have no right to terminate a contract on the basis of such an allegation. On the other hand, it is a crime for ISPs to act as message delivery agents for obscene messages. Everyday many Internet users receive unsolicited obscene messages from various pornographic sites across the world. ISPs are committing a crime by not helping their users avoid receiving such messages. The role of the ISPs is
no different than that of private road companies who are building roads
on a BOT basis across the country. A road company owns the road that it
has built, but that does not give it any right to regulate the rights of
users. A road company’s ownership right over the road does not
override basic constitutional rights of citizens. In the same way, in
the virtual world, every Internet user has a right to access the
Websites and send e-mails. The ISPs have no authority to curtail this
right except by a due process of law. Apparently, Indian
public sector ISPs do not understand that there may be bulk mail that is
not spamming. A significant portion of bulk mail may indeed be mail that
one wants to receive. For example, sending a newborn’s photographs to
50 friends and relatives is not spamming. Similarly, one may want to
receive quarterly reports from the company whose shares are owned by
one. In the true licence-raj style of Indian bureaucracy, BSNL and VSNL
have banned all such messages. |
||||||
 |
||||||
SOMETIME
ago, the Internet subscribers of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL)
received an e-mail message informing them of the anti-spamming measures
implemented on Sancharnet (BSNL’s Internet server). One would have
expected that the BSNL would try to help its customers avoid receiving
unwanted junk mail. Instead of doing that, BSNL is only trying to act as
a hindrance preventing its customers from sending any bulk mail.