[alpha1]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

1. so can you explain why people living in densily populated areas have choice of just one or two ISPs, and have to stick to their plans even when they are not good enough

2. I want to switch to a faster internet connection. Please guide me how to

3. Again, another statement without any real world example. Guide us please

4. You give a statement. I give an example. How cable MAFIA in the absense of regulation killed channels they did not like. Or how due to all service providers colluding, VAS services died

5. are you serious? Again, statements without example. Why don't you go on the internet while its still open and research plans by various service providers. See how same they are

6. Yes, and nobody is saying it should not happen. 1000/month plan and 5000/month plan can co-exist. There is no stopping that even with net-neutrality

1. I am sorry if my point about telecom licensing got hidden in my last post. That is the reason why you have only two vendors to chose from. Also, what do you means by good enough?

2. Are you saying right now you don't have a choice of faster plan? I have access to 100 Mbps internet and this is solely because I am not limited to using only regulated telecom services to access internet. Regulated = less vendors = less choices for customer. Fortunately the wired ISPs do not fall under the draconian govt spectrum licensing "hafta" policies.

Or perhaps you mean to say "I don't want to pay more now show me at same or lower prices where do I get faster net?" Well, if that is that case I can again show you umpteen plans by wired ISPs which are faster as well as cheaper than regulated telecom ISPs.

3. Again I think my whole example about water got buried in my post, but the message was this - the same shop has regular tap water, bottled water, mineral water, glacier water. As a customer I have a choice to buy what I want by paying what I choose to. No one is imposing his conditions on me. Are you also opposed to Bottled water being sold for Rs 10-12 per liter?

4. Cable mafia killed channels? I have lived in the 80s and 90s in Delhi when we had placed a huge parabolic antenna for the entire colony which we stopped and switched to cable operator, and right now I am staying in Pune and the cable "mafia" delivers a better service as well as more extensive range of channels at lower price compared to all the direct home satellite ones.

What perhaps you are taking about is cable operators using violence to drive out competition. And THEN they were able to manipulate what the channels viewers will get and what price they will pay.

Have I ever said anything remotely like reduce competition and get better service?

5. So your grouse is that all telecom vendors are providing same plans and no one is offering something more for low and that means (according to you) everyone has jacked up his prices? On the contrary it means that each telecom vendor has reached the optimum lowest prices where they will make enough money to sustain, and as well as cater to the customer demands.

If you are implying that everyone is making outrageous money, it will be flawed because each telecom vendor aims to get as many customers as possible (by reducing prices) while still being sustainable (not becoming bankrupt). When everyone is trying hard to beat others - how can they afford to price it high?

6. I don't see why are you raising this point when I am not opposed to different prices for different things?

Originally Posted by ashua

^
1. Governments and Law is expected to intervene when there is something anti-competition, anti-trust or similar in nature that two corporations decide to do. That does not make us a regulated market or a socialist country. We elect governments and this is one of their jobs.

All the talk of alternatives (low cost or high) falls flat in a walled garden approach, as zero rating services can only be afforded by the ones with deep pockets. You are left with the choice of 2/3 vendors who can afford them.

2. Its absurd to say an auction that is carried out for allotting spectrum is killing competition but unfair trade practices are not.

We have been going in circles for a while now, so I am going to stop and see what happens on the 24th.

1. Anti trust? Airtel tying up with Flipkart is anti trust because ____ ? Because Airtel holds a monopoly in all the internet traffic (wired as well as spectrum)? Because Flipkart holds monopoly over all retail e-commerce? Come on!

Since you are talking from the point of view of small time e-retail shop. Can you please guide me how they do business? I mean lets say they start a website, how do the majority of potential customer land up at their site? How do they manage to fight with the big time e-tailers like Amazon and Flipkart and Snapdeal?

2. thanks for using the term unfair.

[noopster]

Originally Posted by ashua

^
We have been going in circles for a while now, so I am going to stop and see what happens on the 24th.

Unfortunately the signs are not so good. Read this. Certainly get the impression TRAI has decided where it sits on this, 9.5 lakh emails to them notwithstanding.

I don't think the full impact of loss of net neutrality has been absorbed by most people, least of all those who are so blase that it is just another innocent way for telecom operators to make more revenue and accusing the rest of us here as doomsday prophets who are getting our pants in a twist for no reason.

Someone is even arguing for the freedom of corporations to operate, quite content to see his own rights as a consumer rid slipshod on.

Oh well, like ashua says, we'll know soon enough.

[tsk1979]

yup, 24th it is
All this reminds of of Crassus.
Back when, there was no regulation, Crassus own the fire fighting company in Rome

When buildings were burning, Crassus and his purposely-trained crew would show up, and Crassus would offer to purchase the presumably doomed property and perhaps neighboring endangered properties from their owners for speculatively low sums; if the purchase offer was accepted, Crassus would then use his army of some 500 slaves which he purchased due to their knowledge of architecture and building to put the fire out, sometimes before too much damage had been done: otherwise Crassus would use his crews to rebuild. If his purchase offers were not accepted, then Crassus would not engage in firefighting. Crassus's slaves employed the Roman method of firefighting—destroying the burning building to curtail the spread of the flames.[8] Similar methods were used by Crassus in the common event of the collapse of the large Roman buildings known as insulae, which were notorious for their poor construction and unsafe conditions. Crassus was happy to cheaply construct new insulae using his slave labour force, in place of the old insulae which had collapsed and/or burned; however, he was known for his raising of rents rather than for his erection of improved residential structures.

[Horn-OK-Pls]

I admit am not a techy like many of the BHPian’s seem to be but would like to put across my 2 cents across.
So here’s my take. As an ISP, their job is to provide me a pipe. Yes. I will pay for the size of the pipe as per what the competitive market decides. So it’s up to me to pay for a 2G/3G service for my mobile or a 5/10 mbps pipe for my home Wi-Fi.
The question which I ask myself is “What additional service does the ISP provide me apart from allowing me to access the internet through the pipe I paid for?”. The short answer is NOTHING.
Now should I need to pay up a subscription for WSJ to access their content, if it’s in my interest, I will. But how can an ISP justify, charging me ‘extra’ for accessing WSJ to whom I have already paid subscription? Or for that matter, free sites like google, FB, Flipkart and so on? What added value is an ISP providing apart from providing the ‘pipe’? A site/content owner can charge to access the content because he controls the IP/rights for that content.

One of the members mentioned that the advent of dish’s threw TV neutrality out of the window. That’s rubbish. The TV channels make revenue from predominantly two sources a) subscription revenue & b) advertising revenue. The whole cable operator business has been completely detrimental to the business of TV channels for the very reason that they controlled which channels would be broadcasted on which frequency bands directly affecting the quality and position of the channels. This led to the concept of carriage fee which left many media groups bleeding for years. This is exactly akin to what the ISP’s are proposing. How would and IPL viewer (let’s say staying in Punjab) feel if their cable operator asks to pay up say Rs 500 for the IPL broadcast else the normal broadcast would be grainy and the audio will be in Tamil? What option does Set Max, the official broadcaster have but to pay the cable operator “carriage fee” which is akin to blackmail to ensure viewership that they have claimed while selling it to sponsors’/advertisers?
Another example. Some of you may use the app called Hotstar? As you know, it’s a free service by the Star TV Group of channels. The app gives you access to all the content OWNED by the Star TV network. Now how would you feel if your ISP charges you access to the app or uses speed denial for the app that’s owned by Star TV Network? Is your ISP adding any value to the app? NO. So how can they decide? How different is it to blackmail?
My point is very clear. If you are adding value, give me the right to pay or not pay for it. But if your basic job is to provide me with a pipe, you have no business to charge me extra to any content/service that you don’t own.
Apologies if I may have come strongly across, but I hate anyone blackmailing me.

Mod Note : Post Edited. Smiley usage is restricted to two per post on Team-BHP. Please do NOT use more than 2 smileys in a post.

We advise you to read the Forum Rules before proceeding any further.

[Chetan_Rao]

Big changes, negative or positive, always start small. Taking a 'what difference would it make?' stand on anything without considering full (and possibly long-term) implications or dismissing dissent as fear-mongering and/or baseless speculation is irresponsible, to say the least. If we waited in every instance for all implications to actually materialize, it would probably be too late to do anything about it. Net neutrality is just one such.

I won't quote any examples, just look at human history and you'll see plenty of disasters that started with a seemingly harmless act, some even masquerading as 'beneficial to the masses'.

[tsk1979]

Found this gem


This is from Indonesia, where there is no net-neutrality regulation.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Found this gem

This is from Indonesia, where there is no net-neutrality regulation.

Welcome to the future, I'd say.
In that picture, though, what is the "current package", any clue?

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by mayankk

Welcome to the future, I'd say.
In that picture, though, what is the "current package", any clue?

The current package is "Free, honest, regulation free, capitalism certified, guaranteed to make you rich" Internet package

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

The current package is "Free, honest, regulation free, capitalism certified, guaranteed to make you rich" Internet package

Yep, I thought so. It had the honest tinge of a consumer minded corporate. Dripping, that is.
Next up will be "you want to see faces, and read text on facebook? Sorry, your house is not with that much. "

[noopster]

The assault has begun! Watch out sheeple

[ashua]

From the horses mouth around non-neutrality in the cable industry and parallels with the net neutrality debate: http://www.thequint.com/2015/apr/15/...net-neutrality

Now I am launching a digital media outfit. The same predatory vultures are gathering overhead, demanding curbs on free access, trying to create scarcities which can be used to blackmail start-ups. I don’t want to die again.

And that’s why I punch for Net Neutrality.

First generation start-ups need a level playing field.

Monopolists, beware!

Another good one that explains the drawbacks both from end user perspective and perspective of startups: http://inc42.com/buzz/how-indian-tel...tup-ecosystem/

Question: The whole thing sounds like a terrible deal for startups, but wouldn’t consumers still benefit from the free data?


Whatever Flipkart pays Airtel will be recovered from us through higher prices. In fact, with just one or two competitors rather than dozens, the pressure on Flipkart to keep prices low, deliver stuff on time and provide good customer support will all reduce.

The same holds for free apps — they will use their newly increased market share to charge advertisers more, a cost that those companies will pass on to us.

In the longer term, customers will lose as future Indian startups all die before they even raise an angel round.

[Chetan_Rao]

Originally Posted by noopster

The assault has begun! Watch out sheeple
Attachment 1363300

Vagueness personified. How is free restricted internet more 'affordable'? Plus the cheek to call it sabka internet, as if it's the consumers who are stopping internet penetration.

This just seems like a gimmick to counter the net neutrality email count.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by noopster

The assault has begun! Watch out sheeple
Attachment 1363300

Well, I do believe that solutions need to be found to make the internet more accessible - but just don't believe in the current proposals from operators.

[mallumowgli]

This thread has become a clash of ideologies - between proponent(s) of free market in internet and proponents of regulated internet pricing. As someone said, this will go around in circles, since there is a difference in ideologies rather than the modalities. But certain questions that come to my mind are (only in Indian context)

(1)Since there are few players how do you prevent cartelisation? (Is our MRTP act still valid? Anyway, it was a toothless one!!)

(2)Choices for the customers are limited, and the entry barriers are high - customers hardly have any options. Most of the time it will be just jumping from frying pan to the fire!!

(3)Things are always opaque in India - hardly any transparancy. Information available across the board is one of the pre-requisites of free market

(4)Redressal of grievances - the less said about our country, the better!

alpha1 was talking about capitalism being the efficient mechanism which can improve the quality of service and as a result improve quality of life - I don't know for sure. I somehow feel it was neither capitalism or communism. Life became better because of participatory democracy and egalitarian education. The society always moved forward on the shoulders of a few enterprising individuals (right from the uncredited guy who invented the spoked wheel in Sumeria right down to Cadbury to Ford to Gate or Rajnikanth). And then there were the coterie of intelligent and influencial people, positioned in between these enterprising people and the public, who kept all the information to themselves. The check was only democracy which enabled at least a portion of benefits to percolate down

The question here is will Airtel or any other ISP be the 'enterprising individual' or the 'coterie'? My guess would be - the latter. Because they have the power (money), information and are more knowledgeable than the lay person.

But at the same time going for net neutrality (as explained in this thread - I have not read up on the available literature on this) will also not be the most effective. In fact you will be forcing the ISP to provide only the pipeline, and not look for more efficient business models. There is a high chance that this will not allow a more innovative and efficient pricing that could benefit the consumers. And that would be the cost that one needs to pay if the benefits of having net neutrality is to be enjoyed

There was a mention that opening up the cable TV operations benefitted the customer. In the smaller towns that I had direct experience, it lead to cartelization. You handle this territory, I will handle this - we do not encroach each other and together we will take customer for a ride!! The market was not big enough for some big players to enter and the entry barrier was rather restrictive due to certain local conditions

(To diffuse the tension - an anecdote : A few months back there was report in malayalam daily about the visit of food inspectors to restaurants around Ottappalam busstand, and pricing of Kerala parotta. On visiting 5-6 different restaurants, they found that all restaurants and eateries had totally different prices for the same stuff. Surprise Surprise!! And they went away saying that they will take action. Luckily no action came. But if there was a follow up action, guess who would be the loser?)

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

This thread has become a clash of ideologies - between proponent(s) of free market in internet and proponents of regulated internet pricing.

Regulated Internet pricing? This has nothing to do with net-neutrality. If airtel decides it will charge 1000rs/KB, it is not a violation of net neutrality.
However, if Airtel says it will charge 1rs/KB for facebook, but 10rs/KB for google+, then its a violation of net neutrality. This is the basic thing most do not understand

(1)Since there are few players how do you prevent cartelisation? (Is our MRTP act still valid? Anyway, it was a toothless one!!)

you cannot. Cartelization happened in USA, it happened over here. Many high density areas, eg well populated sectors in cities like Noida, Ludhiana etc., have just 1-3 providers, all offering similar plans.
In rare pockets, there is a "disrupter" like BEAM tele, so everyone is forced to offer better packages. BSNL Hyd, as well as Airtel offer much cheaper packages for hyd.

(2)Choices for the customers are limited, and the entry barriers are high - customers hardly have any options. Most of the time it will be just jumping from frying pan to the fire!!

This is esp true for stuff which requires infrastructure. Roads, Electricity, Internet...

(3)Things are always opaque in India - hardly any transparancy. Information available across the board is one of the pre-requisites of free market

Free market is often an illusion. More so here

(4)Redressal of grievances - the less said about our country, the better!

alpha1 was talking about capitalism being the efficient mechanism which can improve the quality of service and as a result improve quality of life

Capitalism and communism do not have anything to do with Neutrality. A communist govt can enforce zero data charges for govt approved sites. This violates net-neutrality.
A capitalist, pro market govt can certify ISPs as common carriers - This ensures neutrality. They are free to charge whatever they want, they are NOT FREE TO DISCRIMINATE


This is the CRUX of NET NEUTRALITY

Q. CAN COMPANIES CHARGE WHAT THEY WANT FOR INTERNET?
A. YES YES AND YES. IT DOES NOT VIOLATE NET NEUTRALITY

Q. CAN COMPANIES DIFFERENTIATE OR DISCRIMINATE
A. NO

So that's it.
Bringing capitalism, communism, socialism, libertarianism ,idiotism, geniusism or whatever into net neutrality is absurd

(To diffuse the tension - an anecdote : A few months back there was report in malayalam daily about the visit of food inspectors to restaurants around Ottappalam busstand, and pricing of Kerala parotta. On visiting 5-6 different restaurants, they found that all restaurants and eateries had totally different prices for the same stuff. Surprise Surprise!! And they went away saying that they will take action. Luckily no action came. But if there was a follow up action, guess who would be the loser?)

If ISPs served Kerala Parotta(Internet), they would be free to charge 100rs or 1000rs for it. No issues.
But they cannot say "IF you swallow it whole you pay 20rs, but if you chew it slowly you pay 50rs"