Spectrum wasn't sold to them, it was licensed. A list of specific services they are allowed to provide is in the license agreement. Spectrum remains public property leased out for a specific purpose, and not private property; the government is well within its rights to decide what the spectrum should, and should not, be used for.
They knew the license terms when they bid for the spectrum. One of the approved uses is providing internet service, and the license agreement (UASL) specifically says that this entails providing access to all legal websites and services on the internet.
While the intent is clear, it isn't as detailed as net neutrality legislation in other countries — which is why campaigners want new regulations or legislation with similar clarity as laws in Brazil, Chile or the FCC's rules.
The telecoms are still going to provide the internet services. But they want to provide free packages for some of the services. They have the license and they can manage to provide access to some of the sites for free. Of course the access is not really free, just that the party that is receiving the traffic (Flipkart) and the ISP have an arrangement to bear the costs rather than charging the visitor. Whoever wants to access the internet, can still do so by paying for it, as they do now. Are we being fair when we say that we want to call that illegal ? Laws are based on the idea of fairness. We should first debate the fairness of a practice before we push for it to be legislated.
They knew the license terms when they bid for the spectrum. One of the approved uses is providing internet service, and the license agreement (UASL) specifically says that this entails providing access to all legal websites and services on the internet.
While the intent is clear, it isn't as detailed as net neutrality legislation in other countries — which is why campaigners want new regulations or legislation with similar clarity as laws in Brazil, Chile or the FCC's rules.