Access at the cost of Net neutrality?

In the Net neutrality debate, there is a conflict between two core values: ease of access and neutrality. The ease of access promised by applications like Free Basics compromises neutrality and may later morph into a method of predatory pricingIf programs that bring access to a part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could eventually lead to telecom companies abusing their dominant positions in the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to discriminate between different applications. Though they have not yet exploited this autonomy fully, they are certainly moving towards that.

Earlier this year, the social media giant, Facebook, formalised a partnership with Reliance Communications that enabled the Indian company to provide access to over 30 different websites, without any charge on mobile data accruing to the ultimate user. The platform, originally known as “Internet.org,” has now been rebranded as “Free Basics,” Facebook announced last month. Its fundamental ethos, though, remains unchanged. It allows Reliance’s subscribers to surf completely free of cost a bouquet of websites covered within the scheme, which includes, quite naturally, facebook.com. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, views this supposed initiative as a philanthropic gesture, as part of a purported, larger aim to bring access to the Internet to those people who find the costs of using generally available mobile data prohibitive.

Neutrality, an interpretive concept

On the face of it, this supposed act of altruism appears to be commendable. But, there are many critics — some of whom have come together to launch a website “savetheinternet.in” with a view to defending Internet freedom — who argue that Free Basics violates what has come to be known as the principle of network (or Net) neutrality.

While it is clear to all of us that a notion of Net neutrality involves some regulation of the Internet, it is less clear what the term actually means. Like any phrase that involves either a moral or a legal obligation, Net neutrality is also an interpretive concept. People who employ the term to denote some sort of binding commitment, or at the least an aspirational norm, often tend to disagree over precisely how the idea ought to be accomplished. Tim Wu — an American lawyer and presently a professor at the Columbia University — who coined the term, views the notion of Net neutrality as signifying an Internet that does not favour any one application over another. In other words, the idea is to ensure that Internet service providers do not discriminate content by either charging a fee for acting as its carrier or by incorporating any technical qualifications.

In India, there is no law that expressly mandates the maintenance of a neutral Internet. This March, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released a draft consultation paper seeking the public’s views on whether the Internet needed regulation. Unfortunately, much of its attention was focussed on the supposedly pernicious impact of applications such as WhatsApp and Viber. “In a multi-ethnic society there is a vital need,” wrote TRAI, “to ensure that the social equilibrium is not impacted adversely by communications that inflame passions, disturb law and order and lead to sectarian disputes.” The questions, therefore, in its view were these: should at least some Internet applications be amenable to a greater regulation, and should they compensate the telecom service providers in addition to the data charges that the consumers pay directly for the use of mobile Internet?

If the government eventually answers these questions in the affirmative, the consequences could be drastic. It could lead to a classification of Internet applications based on arbitrary grounds, by bringing some of them, whom the government views as harmful to society in some manner or another, within its regulatory net. Through such a move, the state, contrary to helping establish principles of Net neutrality as a rule of law, would be actively promoting an unequal Internet.

In any event, as things stand, in the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to discriminate between different applications. Though these companies have not yet completely exploited this autonomy, they are certainly proceeding towards such an exercise. In April this year, Airtel announced Airtel Zero, an initiative that would allow applications to purchase data from Airtel in exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers free of cost.

On the face of it, this programme appears opposed to Net neutrality. But what is even more alarming is that mobile Internet service providers could, in the future, plausibly also control the speeds at which different applications are delivered to consumers. For example, if WhatsApp were to subscribe to Airtel Zero by paying the fee demanded by the company, Airtel might accede to offering WhatsApp to consumers at a pace superior to that at which other applications are run. This kind of discrimination, as Nikhil Pahwa, one of the pioneers of the Save The Internet campaign, has argued, is prototypically opposed to Net neutrality. It tends to breed an unequal playing field, and, if allowed to subsist, it could create a deep division in the online world. Ultimately, we must view Net neutrality as a concept that stands for the values that we want to build as a society; it pertains to concerns about ensuring freedom of expression and about creating an open space for ideas where democracy can thrive. There is a tendency, though, to view those who support Net neutrality as representing a supercilious position. Such criticism is unquestionably blinkered, but it also highlights certain telling concerns.

Telecom companies that wish to discriminate between applications argue that in the absence of an Internet that has completely permeated all strata of society, an obligation to maintain neutrality is not only unreasonable on the companies, but also unfair on the consumer. After all, if nothing else, Airtel Zero and Free Basics bring, at the least, some portions of the Internet to people who otherwise have no means to access the web. What we have, therefore, at some level, is a clash of values: between access to the Internet (in a limited form) and the maintenance of neutrality in an atmosphere that is inherently unequal. This makes tailoring a solution to the problem a particularly arduous process.

The Internet, in its purest form, is a veritable fountain of information. At its core lies a commitment to both openness and a level playing field, where an ability to innovate is perennially maintained. It is difficult to argue against Facebook when it says that some access is better than no access at all. But one of the problems with Free Basics, and indeed with Airtel Zero too, is that the consumer has no choice in which websites he or she might want to access free of cost. If this decision is made only by Facebook, which might argue that it gives every developer an equal chance to be a part of its project as long as it meets a certain criteria, what we have is almost a paternalistic web. In such a situation, information, far from being free, is shackled by constraints imposed by the service provider.

Laudable end, unethical means

This is precisely one of the concerns raised by those arguing in favour of Net neutrality, who, it is worth bearing in mind, aren’t resistant to the idea of a greater penetration of the Internet. Their apprehensions lie in companies resorting to what they believe is an unethical means to achieving, at least in theory, a laudable end. According to them, negating Net neutrality, in a bid to purportedly achieve greater access to the Internet in the immediate future, could prove profoundly injurious in the long run. Yes, Airtel Zero and Free Basics would bring to the less-privileged amongst us some access to the Internet, but the question is this: at what cost?

The worry is that if the programs that bring access to a part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could eventually lead to these telecom companies abusing their dominant positions. No doubt, as Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, has argued, it might require a deeper analysis to argue convincingly that packages such as Free Basics and Airtel Zero require immediate invalidation in their present forms; significantly, the former does not demand payments from the applications while the latter is premised on such consideration. But, viewed holistically, the companies’ actions could potentially be characterised as a form of predatory pricing, where consumers might benefit in the short run, only for serious damage to ensue to competition in the long run.

It is, therefore, necessary that any debate on the issue must address the tension between the two apparently conflicting goals — the importance of maintaining a neutral Internet and the need to ensure a greater access to the web across the country. Mr. Zuckerberg argues that these two values are not fundamentally opposed to each other, but can — and must — coexist. He is possibly correct at a theoretical level.

But the history of markets tells us that we have to be very careful in allowing predatory practices, devised to achieve short-term goals, to go unbridled. As citizens, each of us has a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. If we were to get the balance between these two values wrong, if we were to allow the domination, by a few parties, of appliances that facilitate a free exchange of ideas, in a manner that impinges on the Internet’s neutrality, our most cherished civil liberties could well be put to grave danger.

Net neutrality is a principle that says Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat all traffic and content on their networks equally.

How does net neutrality affect you?

The internet is now a level-playing field. Anybody can start up a website, stream music or use social media with the same amount of data that they have purchased with a particular ISP. But in the absence of neutrality, your ISP might favour certain websites over others for which you might have to pay extra. Website A might load at a faster speed than Website B because your ISP has a deal with Website A that Website B cannot afford. It’s like your electricity company charging you extra for using the washing machine, television and microwave oven above and beyond what you are already paying.

http://neostencil.com/

Key players

• Internet Service Providerslike Airtel, Vodaphone, Reliance...
• The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India which lays down the rules for telecom companies
• The Internet companieslike Facebook, Google, whatsapp and other smaller startups
• You, the consumer

Why now?

Late last month, Trai released a draft consultation paper seeking views from the industry and the general public on the need for regulations for over-the-top (OTT) players such as Whatsapp, Skype, Viber etc, security concerns and net neutrality. The objective of this consultation paper, the regulator said, was to analyse the implications of the growth of OTTs and consider whether or not changes were required in the current regulatory framework.

What is an OTT?

OTT or over-the-top refers to applications and services which are accessible over the internet and ride on operators' networks offering internet access services. The best known examples of OTT are Skype, Viber, WhatsApp, e-commerce sites, Ola, Facebook messenger. The OTTs are not bound by any regulations. The Trai is of the view that the lack of regulations poses a threat to security and there’s a need for government’s intervention to ensure a level playing field in terms of regulatory compliance.

 Source: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality/article7735242.ece

NET NEUTRALITY

What’s Net neutrality?

It is the principle that all traffic on the Internet must be treated equally by Internet service providers. Those advocating Net neutrality believe all bits of data are equal, and, therefore, should not be discriminated on the basis of content, site or user. This has largely been the default mode since Internet started.

Why has there been so much of noise about Net neutrality in recent months?

First, India’s top telecom company Bharti Airtel, towards the end of last year, decided to charge subscribers extra for use of apps such as Skype and Viber. These apps compete with the voice and messaging services of telecom providers, and are even cheaper. There was uproar, after which Airtel stayed its decision, saying it would wait for regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s (TRAI) Consultation Paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTT) services.

Then, Facebook brought to India internet.org, a pre-selected bouquet of Web sites offered free to subscribers of Reliance Communications. There was not much controversy then.

The buzz became really big after TRAI put out a 118-page consultation paper asking the public for its opinion on 20 questions, most of them about how the Internet can be regulated. Views were also sought on Net neutrality.

By evening of Tuesday, over 4.2 lakh mails had been sent in support of Net neutrality through the savetheinternet.in Web site. Political parties such as the Congress, political leaders such as Arvind Kejriwal and celebrities such as Shah Rukh Khan joined the bandwagon, as has the comedy group All India Bakchod through a video. All of them argue why the Internet should not be touched. TRAI will be open to taking comments till April 24, and counter comments by May 8. In between all this, Airtel last week launched Airtel Zero, which is a free offering of a slew of apps that sign up with the telecom provider. On Tuesday, Flipkart pulled out of the platform after initially agreeing to be on it, saying it was committed to Net neutrality.

Who benefits from Net neutrality? How?

Every Internet user. Think through how you would like to browse the Internet. Wouldn’t you like to access the Web without worrying about how differently videos will be charged compared to other forms of content? Wouldn’t you like to access the Web without the telecom service provider getting to serve some sites faster than others? If yes for both, you are pro-Net neutrality.
New ventures benefit too. In fact, one of the key reasons for start-ups to have come up in a big way in recent decades is the openness of the Internet. The Internet has reduced transaction costs and levelled the playing field.
A start-up can come up with an app today, and can immediately attract a global audience. The likes of Googles and Facebooks could have struggled to grow if the Internet had not been open.

Then, why do we need to think about regulating the Internet?

Essentially because the telecom companies do not like the way the apps are riding on their networks for free. The companies complain that voice-calling and messaging apps are cannibalising on their business. On top of all this, it is they who have to invest billions in getting access to spectrum and build networks as also adhere to regulations.

So, absence of Net neutrality will benefit telecom companies?

It could make them a gatekeeper to a valuable resource, a role that supporters of Net neutrality feel will be misused to create winners and losers. They could charge companies a premium for access to users.
It would not be a telecom companies versus internet players issue, as could be mistakenly perceived. For, the absence of Net neutrality could also benefit established Internet companies who are flush with money. They could nip challengers in the bud with vastly higher payoffs to telecom companies.

Is this an issue in India alone?

No. The Federal Communications Commission just recently voted for what is seen as strong Net neutrality rules. This is to ensure Internet service providers neither block, throttle traffic nor give access priority for money. Europe is trying to correct a 2013 proposal for Net neutrality, in which privileged access was allowed to ‘specialised services.’ This was vague and threatened Net neutrality. Chile last year banned zero-rated schemes, those where access to social media is given free to telecom subscribers.

Topic: Ultra Mega Power Projects : By Jaimin Shah

Q. What are the highlights of UMPP?

Ultra Mega Power Projects (UMPP) were launched to meet the growing needs of the economy, achieve power at low tariff, cater the needs of more than one states and to make swift capacity addition.

These are very large sized projects, approximately 4000 MW each involving an estimated investment of about $ 4 billion. The projects envisage to substantially reduce power shortages in the country.

These projects are being developed on a Build, Own, and Operate (BOO) basis. Power Finance Corporation (PFC) has been designated as nodal agency. PFC has to create a project specific Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), which in turn will perform the bidding process for the project.

Following are the salient features of this initiative:

The Ultra Mega Power Projects would use Super Critical Technology with a view to achieve higher levels of fuel efficiency, which results in fuel saving and lower green-house gas emissions.

Flexibility in unit size subject to adoption of specified minimum Supercritical parameters.

Integrated power project with dedicated captive coal blocks for pithead projects.

Coastal projects to use imported coal.

Q. What is the Concept of Shell Companies (SPVs) and its Operationalisation?

The preliminary project development activities including tie up of various inputs / clearances are to be carried out by the respective SPVs. These SPVs, alongwith the various clearances, tie ups, etc. are subsequently transferred to the selected project developer.

Some of the main activities undertaken by the SPVs are:

Appointment of Consultants to undertake preparation of Project Report, preparation of Rapid Environment Impact Assessment Report and to conduct other studies as required etc.

To finalise RfQ/ RfP documents in consultation with States / bidders

To carry out RfQ/ RfP process and award of project Acquisition of land for the project as per requirement of bidding guidelines Obtaining allocation of Coal blocks for pit-head projects

Getting clearance regarding allocation of water by the State Govt. for pit-head locations

Approval for use of sea water from Maritime Board/ other Govt. Agencies for coastal locations

Obtain/initiate environment and forest, clearances etc. as per requirement of Bidding Guidelines.

Obtaining geological reports/ other related data from CMPDI for the coal blocks

Signing of Power Purchase Agreements with Procurers.

Q. What is the Status of UMPP?

Four UMPPs namely Sasan in Madhya Pradesh, Mundra in Gujarat, Krishnapatnam in Andhra Pradesh and Tilaiya in Jharkhand have been awarded to the identified developers.

Furthermore, Request for Qualification (RfQ) for two more UMPPs one in Sarguja District of Chhattisgarh and another at Bedabahal in Sundergarh District of Orissa have already been issued. Sites in respect of Tamil Nadu UMPP and Andhra Pradesh Second UMPP have been identified. Efforts are being made to bring them to bidding stage at the earliest. Sites selection processes are on for setting up of more UMPPs in different states like Jharkhand, Orissa, Tamil Nadu and Gujarat etc.

Centre unveils IPv6 roadmap

All government organisations should have a plan to shift to a network that supports new version of internet addresses, IPv6, by 2017-end, Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal on Tuesday said.

“By 2017, we should be a smart knowledge society. We will use IPv6 for rural emergency healthcare, tele-education, smart-metering, smart-grid, smart-building, smart-cities which has tremendous potential for socio-economic development of this country,” Mr. Sibal said while unveiling the roadmap.

The government has started issuing IPv6 addresses following shortage of previous version of internet address, IPv4.

“The current version, IPv4, has almost run out of addresses. The explosive growth of number of subscribers and the increasing number of devices has made it necessary to migrate to IPv6. Its adoption is must for secure and sustainable growth of internet,” Telecom Secretary R. Chandrashekhar said.

According to the plan, DoT has said that government organisations should prepare a detailed transition plan for complete migration to IPv6 by December 2017.

“The plan should be prepared latest by December 2013 and accordingly the required budgetary provisions should be made in their demand for grant. For this purpose, it is recommended that a dedicated transition unit in each organisation should be formed immediately to facilitate entire transition,” DoT Member (Technology) R.K. Bhatnagar said.

The roadmap mandates that all internet connections provided to business organisations should support new version of internet addresses, IPv6, from January 1, 2014 onwards.

“All new enterprise customer connections, both wireless and wireline, provided by Service Providers on or after 01-01-2014 shall be capable of carrying IPv6 traffic either on dual stack or on native IPv6,” Mr. Bhatnagar said.

As per the IPv6 adoption plan, all new IP based services like cloud computing, data centres etc., to be provisioned for and by the government organisations should be on dual stack.

This means it should support both IPv6 traffic as well as current version of internet addresses IPv4 with immediate effect.

The public interface of all government projects for delivery of citizen centric services should be on dual stack supporting IPv6 traffic latest by January 1, 2015.

The government organisations should procure equipments which are also IPv6 Ready (Dual Stack) and go for deployment of IPv6 ready (Dual Stack) networks with end-to-end IPv6 supported applications, Mr. Bhatnagar said.

Keywords: internet addresses, IPv6, 

IT managers will have their work cut out in making a case to senior level executives

The last time a new Internet protocol came into being was in the early 1980's, when the Internet was still a fledgling research network. Thirty years later, the migration to a new standard, IPv6, is now a gargantuan task that involves businesses, online enterprises and consumers alike.

Without new addresses, billions of people will never be able to use new Internet services or access applications and technologies that are in the blueprints of today's businesses and in the minds of tomorrow's entrepreneurs.

With minimal investment, companies can jump ahead of the competition by making their systems IPv6 compatible, according to Amod Malviya, Vice-President-Engineering at Flipkart. Surely, IT managers across India will have their work cut out in making a case to senior level executives.

World IPv6 launch day

His remarks come at a time when major network operators, websites and hardware vendors from around the world pushed everybody to get ready for the switch from the current website address identification method of IPv4, as part of the World IPv6 launch on June 6.

Since June 6, leading websites have had IPv6 permanently enabled, while equipment vendors have started including IPv6 connectivity as part of their default product settings.

Deployments of this degree of undertaking are generally not undertaken lightly, but there is no debate anymore on whether or not the world is running out of IPv4 addresses. IPv4 is made up of a set of numbers that help identify web addresses, helping them communicate with one another.

However, the inherent disadvantage of the IPv4 protocol is the creation of only 4.3 billion possible IP addresses, a total which is soon running out.

According to statistics released by the Internet Society, a non-profit organisation, the last block of IPv4 addresses were assigned from the global supply, leaving no address space to be distributed in the Asia-Pacific region.

To put things into perspective, the new IPv6 system would ensure that for every square centimetre on Earth, there will be over 600 million billion IP addresses. Even though issuing IPv4 addresses might continue over the next two years, companies can put themselves ahead of the pack, by wrinkling out the gnarls in the IPv6 learning curve before it becomes popular.

Being prepared

Despite lack of direct financial gain, the transition to IPv6 compatibility is something “that must be done sooner rather than later as it will carry more risk if a company starts doing it when there are many customers on IPv6,” said Mr. Malviya.

However, a recent IPv6 industry survey indicated that over 20 per cent of businesses felt that “there was no business case” for implementing IPv6 — seeing it as an expense with no accompanying revenue increase. It has become increasingly clear now that even with interim workarounds, the long-term overall cost in not deploying IPv6 now will be more for individual companies looking to grow.

“Companies will end up spending more time trying to cope with the scarcity of IPv4 addresses, whether it is in workarounds or buying networking gear — it's just more expensive if you don't plan for it. In addition to this, businesses which do not initiate transition now will risk accessibility problems of their websites and services when more customers start using IPv6 and companies aren't prepared,” said G. V. Murali, network analyst, Fourth Dimension Technologies.

When mobile devices become IPv6 only, with lack of IPv4 addresses, the use of IPv6 will become a requirement for e-commerce and software solution companies looking to expand and tap into these growth opportunities. How do such businesses go about this?

Low investment

Flipkart, India's largest online books retailer, made the switch to IPv6 four weeks ago. According to Mr. Malviya, the shift was not cost-intensive and ‘a lot easier than most companies generally think'.

“For a company like ours, it took us two weeks with a team of four people. The majority of any expenditure for companies that are looking to switch will come from hardware. Basically, if your networking hardware has been purchased in the last five years, it will be fine as it is most likely IPv6 capable,” said Mr. Malviya.

A lot of the staff training can be done using publicly available resources on the Internet and with regard to software, for more than 90 per cent of websites, no change would be needed, he added.

For bigger companies, taking an inventory of all networking hardware and web serving software older than five years becomes the first step as phased conversion could prove to be the cheapest method. However, ICANN CEO, Rob Beckstrom, has projected the cost of moving an emerging market economy of 50 million people to IPv6 at ‘roughly one billion dollars, a figure which includes “upgrades to infrastructure that most companies and governments would have had to do at some point.”

Ovum, an independent analyst and consultancy firm, released a report last year that advised businesses to take up to 10 years to complete the move, with planning starting from last year. At present, the dual stack approach, where both IPv4 and IPv6 protocols are run, is seen as the most effective approach.

ISPs and consumers

While organisations can stave off the eventual change, Internet Service Providers and consumers will have to play their part in adopting the new protocol.

“While some devices may already share an address, if IPv6 isn't implemented, one would have to share a single address with a whole area. Consumers must help create demand by asking for IPv6 support, the next time they choose hardware, software or even their ISPs. Businesses and ISPs have been reluctant to provide IPv6 assistance as they see no customer demand for it,” said Mr. Murali. Businesses that refuse to change, citing cost factors, run the risk of running into a number of challenges including increased costs, crippled website functionality and cordoning growth opportunities in a growing market like India, he added.

Companies, ISPs and netizens must adopt IPv6 to enable continued growth of the Internet, avoid the inevitable chaos caused by the IPv4 shortage and ensure that business is undisrupted.

With a capacity of over 340 trillion, trillion, trillion addresses, IPv6 will allow us to continue, for all practical purposes, indefinitely.

Keywords: Internet protocol, IPv6, World IPv6 launch, switching to IPv6

SPACE MISSIONS 2012-2017

Indo-French joint mission SARAL

Indo-French oceanographic study satellite 'SARAL' and six foreign mini and micro spacecrafts were successfully launched on Monday by Indian Space Research Organisation's PSLV-C20 rocket from this spaceport.

ISRO workhorse Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle lifted off from the first launch pad of Satish Dhawan Space Centre at around 6 pm at the end of the 59-hour countdown and placed in the orbit the satellites about 22 minutes later.

President Pranab Mukherjee witnessed the launch from the mission control centre in Sriharikota, about 110 km from Chennai.

The lift-off was rescheduled to 6.01 pm, a five-minute delay, to avoid probability of collision with space debris, a normal precautionary step in a launch mission, ISRO sources said.

The 410-kg SARAL with payloads -- Argos and Altika -- from French space agency CNES is meant for study of ocean parameters towards enhancing the understanding of the ocean state conditions.

Besides SARAL, two micro-satellites UniBRITE and BRITE from Austria, AAUSAT3 from Denmark and STRaND from United Kingdom as also one micro-satellite (NEOSSat) and one mini-satellite (SAPPHIRE) from Canadawere launched by PSLV, which yet again proved its versatality recording its 22nd succesful flight in a row in its 23 missions of which the first one had failed.

SARAL was injected first into the space about 18 minutes after the lift-off followed by other satellites in the space of about four minutes.

Quick-reaction Surface-to-Air Missile (QRSAM)

The Maitri missile project is a next-generation quick-reaction Surface-to-Air Missile (QRSAM) with a lethal hundred per cent kill probability under development by India's Defence Research and Development Organisation. It is a short-range (15 km, 9.3 mi) surface-to-air point defense missile system. 

The Maitri missile project involved a technological collaboration between MBDA, India’s Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and defence public sector unit Bharat Dynamics Limited. Defence Research and Development Laboratory (DRDL), a premier missile laboratory of DRDO, will act as the main design centre in India. The project, with a budget of US$500 million was said to have been signed in May 2007.

The principal contribution of MBDA will be in providing be the active homing-head, thrust vector control, terminal guidance system and composites for a modified propulsion system for the missile, while the software, command-and-control system, the launchers and system integration work would be carried out by the DRDL.
MBDA has agreed to transfer all sensitive technology such as the seeker and thrust vector control system to India, allowing India to manufacture the Maitri missile locally as well as support them.


Two variants of the missile are planned :
A ship-borne point and tactical air defense version for the Navy and
A mobile wheeled and tracked system for use by the Air Force and Army

The Indian Regional Navigational Satellite System (IRNSS)

The Indian Regional Navigational Satellite System (IRNSS) is an autonomous regional satellite navigation system being developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) which would be under total control of Indian government. The requirement of such a navigation system is driven by the fact that access to Global Navigation Satellite Systems, GPS, is not guaranteed in hostile situations. The IRNSS would provide two services, with the Standard Positioning Service open for civilian use and the Restricted Service, encrypted one, for authorized users (military).

The first satellite of the proposed constellation, developed at a cost of 1,600 crore (US$291.2 million), is expected to be launched during 2012-2013 while the full constellation is planned to be realized around 2015. A goal of complete Indian control has been stated, with the space segment, ground segment and user receivers all being built in India. Three satellites will be in geostationary orbit over the Indian Ocean. Missile targeting could be an important military application for the constellation.

India plans to start launching satellites by the end of 2013, at a rate of one satellite every six months. This will make the IRNSS optimally functional by 2015. India also launched 3 new satellites into space to supplement this. Indian Regional Navigational Satellite System (IRNSS-1) will be the first of the total seven satellites of the IRNSS constellation. It will have a lift off mass of 1380 kg and operate a navigation payload and a C-band ranging transponder and employ an optimised I-1K bus structure with a power handling capability of 1600W and is designed for a nominal mission life of 7 years.

Source: Indian Military Page in facebook