[alpha1]

Originally Posted by ashua

1. Private enterprises are all required to follow a few rules and regulations in place whether it be minimum wages, provident funds, gratuity, etc.

2. And where these regulations are not followed (the un-organised and backward sectors), it does lead to exploitation to a large extent.

3. Plus, I think when you say this, you are speaking against your own point. We want the internet to be free and not controlled by telecom or the government. Are you for controlling it? by tie ups made between your ISP and the vendor, they are in a way controlling your internet experience.

4. If the vendor was so inclined, he could offer freebie's to user's from a certain telecom provider. Let him do that and try to get customer's to come to his site and buy, rather than saying let people access my site and block/throttle my competitors. There is a difference between wooing and forcing my hand.

5. Variable toll prices (peak time based tolls) according to me is a fair exercise since it applies equally to everyone travelling during the peak time. I feel it is something that will eventually start getting implemented.

I am not assuming anything, but it is the future that we are talking about so you are predicting something and I am predicting the opposite. The fact remains that zero rating, subsidised access to selective services is something that is stopped/rejected the world over with the single reason that these have a strong possibility of violating net neutrality and shunting innovation.

1. Where does one draw the line of too little regulation and too much regulation?
2. We need examples where reduction / removal of regulations indeed lead to "exploitation". Besides, what really is definition of exploitation?
3. How do you construe Airtel tying up with Flipkart as controlling internet?
4. Who is forcing you to use Airtel Zero and access Flipkart? You have a choice to use Airtel, pay for internet and surf wikipedia. You also have choice to switch to Idea and surf Amazon for free. And so on. No one is taking away your right to surf internet (although there is no such right actually), only you are paying for accessing some site, and getting others for free.
5. I gave the toll example and dynamic market pricing to show that people cry wolf over perceived unfair strategies, whereas there is nothing unfair about it.

Originally Posted by StarrySky

1. Dynamic pricing is different since everyone pays the same. Dynamic pricing exists in Internet access in India - like reduced rates or free data usage during the nights. However, suggesting you pay for some sites while you do not pay for others (and not based on my choices) is not dynamic pricing - the better term probably is "Restrictive Trade Practice".

2. Suppose Whatsapp charges Rs.60 per year like they did earlier, why would you switch if your basic internet packet from your mobile operator costs Rs.100 a month? While WhatsApp charges may be "visible", charges of Flipkart or other sites may not be so visible in subtle pricing changes. Even if it is higher than a competitor's price by Rs.20, will you switch because switching will cost you Rs.100 every month "directly"? Eventually, you will be paying the same Rs.100 extra effectively and indirectly every month to access a restricted list of sites. And so will everyone else (even those who pay for unrestricted internet) because you want subsidy. And you will not change because you will still have "zero cost" internet.

3. You may want to think a bit about the word "regulated". How is a private player "regulating" my access based on his own commercial agreements (and not my choice), "free" for me?

4. If the AirTel Zero platform allowed "me" and a service provider "of my choice" on the internet to reach an agreement where he will pay AirTel for my access to his own site, then that would be OK from the point of view of net neutrality (although eventually this would also lead to price hikes). It is not for AirTel to decide what I should do.

1. I gave the toll example and dynamic market pricing to show that people cry wolf over perceived unfair strategies, whereas there is nothing unfair about it. I have anyway written above about how you still have a choice.

2. I think you underestimate the power of value, alternatives and choices. I may choose to take a data plan of Rs100 + chose to pay for whasapp simply because for me that is the value. You may choose to take Rs100 data plan and browse only Flipkart because to you any additional spent over Rs100 is a waste.
You have still are not trying to understand point about free market. No one tells what should be done. The price and qty create a supply vs demand and this incetives the sellers/entrepreneurs. No one is is asking for subsidy of free Flipkart, no one is a freebooter. BUT given a choice there is a significant section of people who would prefer that over other alternative. That is why Airtel smelled money and implemented the Zero platform. Not because someone got 1 million people to sign a petition for free Flipkart access via Airtel.

3. How is Airtel restricting you from accessing Wikipedia which will NEVER have tie up with any ISP?

4. Airtel is playing the role of a bridge. If tieing up with Flipkart is not going to make money for Flipkart, flipkart will pull off. If Airtel loses money, Airtel will throw Flipkart away. If sufficient demand exists for YOUR preferred seller, why would Airtel not tie up with him??

[ashua]

Originally Posted by blacksport

I will reiterate. The paid internet can coexist with the restricted internet. You would be free to choose the paid option or the restricted one. OR, you can even have both - like restricted one in your mobile and paid one at home.

Very true. Similarly it is not for the rest of the world to tell me what internet I should use. We all can choose what is best for each of us.

No, it is not for the world to tell you which site to visit or which internet to use. You will not be easily influenced because you know the difference between the two.
But a user who is yet to experience the internet and the newer generation will get influenced (over time) not knowing internet beyond what is offered by the ISPs affecting its very definition in India (and all of this might not happen over years but will over decades). It will be reduced to an Intranet or a set of companies that hold the money and monopoly. For all you know the free internet will no longer be offered inside India as operators need the revenue from the vendors and the free internet just conflicts with their interests.

It spells disaster for home grown ideas and talents. Home grown because outside our borders it will remain free and new external players will continue to enter the market. But majority of the users in India will not be able to experience them at the beginning, because they are not as big to start paying or forming agreements with every operator. Since they aren't able to reach people, they will never grow or rather will need to give a cut from their sale to the operators to even think of growing.

[blackwasp]

Let me try to say what the telecom operators want to do:
They will charge you to visit certain websites over you plan.
Eg 1:Want to watch a YouTube video? Pay 100rs per hour. Ok, you decide to go to a rival site but it's restricted to just 64kbps. So your choice is limited to paying up or waiting for an eternity to load up.

Eg 2: you want to buy an electronic gadget from Amazon, but your service provider will ask you to pay 100rs or buy from flipkart. So where is your choice? The option to choose vanishes.

You no longer can freely choose a website, e-commerce site. Where as the telecom operator will force these choices upon you.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by ashua

No, it is not for the world to tell you which site to visit or which internet to use. You will not be easily influenced because you know the difference between the two.
But a user who is yet to experience the internet and the newer generation will get influenced (over time) not knowing internet beyond what is offered by the ISPs affecting its very definition in India (and all of this might not happen over years but will over decades).

I am sure that I would be happy off with free FB, whatsapp and twitter in my phone. Why do you want tod ecide what is better for the rest of the world?

It will be reduced to an Intranet or a set of companies that hold the money and monopoly. For all you know the free internet will no longer be offered inside India as operators need the revenue from the vendors and the free internet just conflicts with their interests.

Back to fear mongering.

It spells disaster for home grown ideas and talents. Home grown because outside our borders it will remain free and new external players will continue to enter the market. But majority of the users in India will not be able to experience them at the beginning, because they are not as big to start paying or forming agreements with every operator. Since they aren't able to reach people, they will never grow or rather will need to give a cut from their sale to the operators to even think of growing.

More fear mongering. All those sentences that include the word "will" is just speculation.

[ashua]

Originally Posted by blacksport

I am sure that I would be happy off with free FB, whatsapp and twitter in my phone. Why do you want tod ecide what is better for the rest of the world?

More fear mongering. All those sentences that include the word "will" is just speculation.

Well I would not be happy buying a data plan from the operator and finding that my access to sites other than FB, whatsapp and twitter is screwed because they are paying the operator and want to ensure their traffic has higher priority than anything else.

Of course its speculation. If I or you could truly see the future, we would not be having this conversation as there would be no point to it.

[roy_libran]

^
If I were to chuck my job and start a business venture a couple of years down the line, and by then, if Airtel were to control 50-60% of the Mobile Internet User base on their Zero plan, I would most likely, have a serious problem on my hands.

To get to that 50% user base, I'd most certainly have to pay through my nose, with money that I'll have to charge from my potential customers, thereby ruining the cost competitiveness of the venture right at the start.

Yes, I would be quite afraid of that happening, and if that is Fear mongering, so be it!

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by roy_libran

^
If I were to chuck my job and start a business venture a couple of years down the line, and by then, if Airtel were to control 50-60% of the Mobile Internet User base on their Zero plan, I would most likely, have a serious problem on my hands.

To get to that 50% user base, I'd most certainly have to pay through my nose, with money that I'll have to charge from my potential customers, thereby ruining the cost competitiveness of the venture right at the start.

Yes, I would be quite afraid of that happening, and if that is Fear mongering, so be it!

SO, it turns out that it is not the consumers that we are worried about. It is the small businesses who would be at a disadvantage. That is a fair enough point.

But they are already disadvantaged in other fields right? Is internet the only level-playing ground we seek?

[roy_libran]

Originally Posted by blacksport

SO, it turns out that it is not the consumers that we are worried about. It is the small businesses who would be at a disadvantage. That is a fair enough point.

But they are already disadvantaged in other fields right? Is internet the only level-playing ground we seek?

The "Small Business/Start-Up" is an additional perspective; one that was mentioned in the OP, but got a bit sidelined by the Consumer angle.
Internet, as I mentioned a few posts back, should be given the status of an "Essential Service".
Monopolies, Duopolies or Oligopolies over the Internet would not only hurt consumers, but also the entire economy, across a broad spectrum.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by blacksport

But they are already disadvantaged in other fields right? Is internet the only level-playing ground we seek?

Why not?
If the model is based ONLY on the internet, then why not?

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by roy_libran

^
If I were to chuck my job and start a business venture a couple of years down the line, and by then, if Airtel were to control 50-60% of the Mobile Internet User base on their Zero plan, I would most likely, have a serious problem on my hands.

Yes you are so right, the competitors of Airtel are going to let that happen, right?

Originally Posted by roy_libran

Internet, as I mentioned a few posts back, should be given the status of an "Essential Service".
Monopolies, Duopolies or Oligopolies over the Internet would not only hurt consumers, but also the entire economy, across a broad spectrum.

If essential services means using Govt regulation whip to stop market players from collaborating and coming up with new schemes (to bait and lure customers and make money) then we should simply move towards a Socialist economy.

A manufacturer Alpha with production capacity of 100 Million tons will have lower per unit cost than Manufacturer Beta with 10 million tons capacity. Now you being a good Samaritan want Govt to impose a regulation that no one can produce above 10 million tons, so that:
1. Manufacturer Alpha cannot offer a lower price
2. Manufacturer Beta doesn't go out of business

Originally Posted by mayankk

Why not?
If the model is based ONLY on the internet, then why not?

Because you are STOPPING the market player from following a natural course of evolution. That course of evolution may wipe out Airtel or Flipkart if their scheme does not really generate profits. But then your suggested way of having rules for everything will ensure that even inefficient enterprises will flourish.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Because you are STOPPING the market player from following a natural course of evolution. That course of evolution may wipe out Airtel or Flipkart if their scheme does not really generate profits. But then your suggested way of having rules for everything will ensure that even inefficient enterprises will flourish.

How is it a NATURAL progression when it's being brought into play by an mou between two corporations, successful or unsuccessful. Of which one is an e-commerce platform. Why not Wikipedia? Wouldn't that be more of use to someone who's experiencing the net for the first time?
If internet.org is supposedly the evolutionary step, why have a monetary agreement with one provider. Why couldn't Airtel have just gone ahead with the same sign-on? And then expounded upon the good they've done. Why didn't they just call up all the providers, and say, hey, have a bite.
You're the ones who are saying rules should come into play. I'm still sticking to universal access.
Inefficient enterprise cannot flourish, FYI, in this space at least. Unless it's government.

You should let cleartrip Fk and the rest know, because, what do they know? They've misunderstood net neutrality and withdrawn mistakenly. They'd love to be enlightened.

[blacksport]

We have moved away from socialism decades ago, but I think we have not banished it completely yet from our souls. That competition gets to decide what is good for us, is something that we are not able to digest yet. We somehow still believe in the power of the government to decide what is good for us. We trust a babu to sit and legislate than the collective will of the people decide.

We have a plethora of laws, rules and regulations in this country, most of them unenforceable. Still I see more and more laws, regulations and bans created, which only serves in harassing people.

End of rant. I think I have said all I have to say. In the last few posts I have been repeating the same things again and again, so with this final rant I take leave. No ill feelings.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by blacksport

We have moved away from socialism decades ago, but I think we have not banished it completely yet from our souls. That competition gets to decide what is good for us, is something that we are not able to digest yet.

You say this and at the same time support a platform that will probably make it impossible for a company with meagre resources to compete against a company with deep pockets - on a medium that has so far been a great leveller in terms of reach of companies big or small. And yet believe that it is all good for everyone. Like you said, no ill feelings.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

The TRAI paper mentions national security threats from an open Internet, clear evidence that the right people have been paid off.

I think national security is a valid concern. Currently all mobile operators have ways to interpret voice calls. I believe this is a regulatory requirement. Govts will also want a mechanism to interpret VoIP calls - without which they are a national security threat. Blackberry has been in trouble with various govts for the same reason.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

Currently all mobile operators have ways to interpret voice calls. I believe this is a regulatory requirement. Govts will also want a mechanism to interpret VoIP calls - without which they are a national security threat. Blackberry has been in trouble with various govts for the same reason.

I believe you mean intercept, and not interpret. Yes, this is a requirement in practically every country including USA.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I believe you mean intercept, and not interpret.

Yes! Thanks for the correction.