CNAP

Disclaimer: Copyright infringement not intended.

Context

• Recently, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) floated a consultation paper seeking comments about the potential introduction of Calling Name Presentation (CNAP). 

 

CNAP

• Caller Name Presentation(CNAP) or Caller Name Delivery (CNAM) is used in telephone networks to provide name identification of the calling party. The CNAM information is most often displayed in Caller ID. The information could be the person's name or a company name. The caller's name can also be blocked and display “restricted”, or if technical failures occur “not available”.
• TRAI’s proposal of the CNAP feature would provide the called individual with information about the calling party (similar to ‘Truecaller’ and ‘Bharat Caller ID & Anti-Spam’). The idea is to ensure that telephone subscribers are able to make an informed choice about incoming calls and curb harassment by unknown or spam callers.

Models proposed by TRAI

The regulator has proposed four models for facilitating the CNAP mechanism.  

FIRST MODEL

The first model involves each telecom service provider (TSP) establishing and operating a CNAP database of its subscribers. Here, the caller’s TSP would have to extract the relevant data from its own database. The latter could either be the name identity of the calling entity or an indicator stating that the presentation of the data is restricted or unavailable. This would then be sent to the potential receiver’s TSP to be presented to the final user. 

 

TRAI observes that operators would also have to upgrade their ‘intermediate network nodes’, used to facilitate, transmit and redistribute data to other nodes and eventually to the end user. 

SECOND MODEL

In the second model, the operator of the calling entity shares its CNAP database with the receiver’s operator. The difference here is that the calling operator would permit the receiver’s operator to access  its database for the caller’s CNAP data. Operators could also use their respective mobile number portability databases. 

THIRD MODEL

The third model envisages a third party operating a centralised database. The onus rests on the receiver’s operator to delve into the centralised database to retrieve and present the caller’s data. This model would require that TSPs inform the database whileenrolling new subscribers or deactivating existing ones.  

This model is similar to a plan envisaged by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in 2018, involving the setting up of a a Digital Intelligence Unit at the central level and Telecom Analytics for Fraud Management and Consumer Protection (TAFCOP) for every licensed operating area. These were to implement a Calling Name Identification System (CLINS) to store the name of each telephone subscriber (as per their subscription enrolment forms) against their numbers.  

 

FOURTH MODEL

And finally, the fourth model would require that each TSP maintain a CNAP database and retain a copy of a synchronised central database operated by a third party. It works this way: the call is facilitated as per the routine procedure, and since the receiver’s operator has access to both the centralised and their own database, the lookup is, therefore, internal. 

 

Challenges to latency

• TRAI has said that latency in setting up the call must be ensured and CNAP must be inter-operable.  
• TRAI noted that there is a likelihood of a slight increase in the time taken to set up a call with respect to certain models. The first and the fourth model which do not require coordination with outside entities are expected to be quicker in comparison to the third model. For the second model, setting up a call would require less time should the caller and receiver be using the same operator, slightly more if the operators are different. 
• The responsiveness might also suffer when moving from a faster wireless network (4G or 5G) to a comparatively slower one (2G or 3G), or vice-versa. 

 

Concerns about privacy

• A Senior Researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), opines that, notwithstanding the utility, it is not particularly clear how the (CNAP) mechanism would balance the caller’s right to remain anonymous, an essential component of the right to privacy.
• To put it into perspective, an individual may opt to remain anonymous for multiple reasons, for example, whistle-blowers or employees being harassed.  

 

Introducing in Feature Phones

• Department of Telecom has requested TRAI to explore the feasibility and network readiness of providing CNAP to all telephone subscribers, including feature-phone users. 
• But CNAP process requires seamless flow of information, from marking ‘spam’ to it reflecting in the database, feature phones would struggle with constantly updating information. This also allows spammers to execute more calls because of the slowness. 

 

Final Thought

• The government must also invest in digital literacy, skilling citizens tonavigate and use the tech better, ensuring they do not share their data indiscriminately and are informed about dangers such as financial frauds and spoofing.

Read all about TRAI here: https://www.iasgyan.in/daily-current-affairs/telecom-regulatory-structure-in-india

 

https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/explained-trais-proposal-to-help-callers-identify-spammers/article66218687.ece