[noopster]

+1 to all of that. And another point: Net neutrality is NOT about free speech. I had the misfortune to watch an episode of Times Now News Hour where Arnab Goswami reduced it to essentially that. Such misrepresentation does little to help the cause of net neutrality and only encourages the likes of COAI to lanuch an offensive on how paranoid the naysayers are.

I must also point out that "neutrality" as it applies to the internet today is somewhat unique. We do NOT enjoy TV content neutrality for example. So when some channel is available only on Reliance DTH and not on Tata Sky I may fume and fret but what choice do I have? Imagine the same scenario where your favourite website or app is not available (or available at sloooooow speeds, or at a cost) because you are on Airtel, or Reliance or Vodafone. Desirable?

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

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

I had left, but I couldn't help jumping back.

The crux of the matter is not whether what airtel et al are doing is against net neutrality or not. It is whether net neutrality is right or not. And we people writing in support of Airtel et al are saying that net neutrality is not right. You need to come out of the preconception of "net neutrality is right" to understand what we are talking about.

Since I was the proponent of Libertarianism in this thread, let me explain why bringing in philosophy is justified. The need of sticking to a philosophy is that it prevents you from being hypocritical in your positions. For example, some hypocritical people in India supports capitalism when it comes to parting with their money (say taxes) while supports socialism when it comes to receiving money (say LPG subsidy).

So, what we say is that when you support capitalism or free market in a part of your life that benefits you, it is not right to oppose it in areas where it doesn't benefit you.


And we do think that capitalism/free markets/libertarianism is the right path to tread since these is the only system where everybody gets to vote - with their wallets, BTW. Even if your side lose, it is still very much fair.

Originally Posted by noopster

Imagine the same scenario where your favourite website or app is not available (or available at sloooooow speeds, or at a cost) because you are on Airtel, or Reliance or Vodafone. Desirable?

Whether it is desirable depends on what you wanted in the first place. If you wanted to access that particular website, yet subscribed to a plan that provided restricted access and then complain, it is not justified. You should select a plan that suits you, not a free one. Imagine going to a party that said free drinks, with a constraint that said "Old Monk only", and then complain that you weren't provided Bacardi.

[ashua]

Originally Posted by blacksport

And we do think that capitalism/free markets/libertarianism is the right path to tread since these is the only system where everybody gets to vote - with their wallets, BTW. Even if your side lose, it is still very much fair.

Honestly, I think your understanding on Net neutrality is totally flawed if you say it is against free markets. Net neutrality is the only thing that can ensure free markets on the Internet.
I would have liked to explain, but no amount of explaining has worked so far. So you can say that I have given up.

[alpha1]

What is a free market?
How is price determined in a free market?

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by ashua

Honestly, I think your understanding on Net neutrality is totally flawed if you say it is against free markets. Net neutrality is the only thing that can ensure free markets on the Internet.
I would have liked to explain, but no amount of explaining has worked so far. So you can say that I have given up.

No problem, I will explain to you since I feel that you have understood it wrong.

Freedom is not reserved to a section of people - freedom of corporations are as important as the freedom of individuals.

As for your freedom to access the site you want, it should start in this order:

- choose the ISP
- choose the plan
- access the site.

As I said in the previous post, choosing a free/restricted plan and then wanting the freedom to access your chosen website is not freedom.

Also you may want to read about the position taken by the pro-free-market political parties across the globe on net neutrality.

Read the official position of the Libertarian Party of United States:
https://www.lp.org/blogs/michelle/fc...net-neutrality

Read the position taken by the Mises Institute:
https://mises.org/library/net-neutra...d-intervention

Net neutrality is anti-free-market, however differently you may try to spin it.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by blacksport

No problem, I will explain to you since I feel that you have understood it wrong.

Read the official position of the Libertarian Party of United States:
https://www.lp.org/blogs/michelle/fc...net-neutrality

Read the position taken by the Mises Institute:
https://mises.org/library/net-neutra...d-intervention

Net neutrality is anti-free-market, however differently you may try to spin it.

Blacksport - You write very well, so well, that I was immediately drawn to the links you posted, in an attempt to understand your point of view. I read both links, and I cannot understand why you have quoted articles from 2010 in 2015.

Both the organizations do not seem to have any credible standing either. Also, FCC has strongly ruled in favor of Net Neutrality. Obama has come out strongly in favor of Net Neutrality and so have many others.

Please read this and hopefully you will understand why Net Neutrality is important. If not, I really cannot explain it any better. I quote Obama here

" November 10, 2014

An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.

“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality."

Oh by the way, just wanted to highlight a couple of points that I noticed on your links: (1) "The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute." (2) The article on the Libertarian Party was written by an intern, not an expert on this topic.

All the best.

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

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

OK - back to the first page

Is Net Neutrality an Economic model or an ethical question?

[Guite]

Originally Posted by blacksport

As I said in the previous post, choosing a free/restricted plan and then wanting the freedom to access your chosen website is not freedom.

Aren't we enjoying that freedom right now, freedom to access any website we want? And fighting to keep that freedom.

Even as an end user I certainly would not like restrictive plan like DTH companies force on us. I can't choose to subscribe to just HD channels. Even then all HD channels are not is the basket, I have to pay extra for Sony Pix, for example. Imagine similar scenario on Internet access. I don't like it already. Tsk1979 had posted on nice screenshot of Facebook access in Indonesia. You get access to text content, but you want to see a photo posted by a friend, maybe just one photo. Pay the ISP!

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

I read both links, and I cannot understand why you have quoted articles from 2010 in 2015.

Because the net neutrality debate has been happening for a long time, and the view of the pro-free-market supporters have not changed. It is another thing that some people just heard about it lately and think that it is something with which evil corporations like Airtel could be taught a lesson.

Both the organizations do not seem to have any credible standing either. Also, FCC has strongly ruled in favor of Net Neutrality. Obama has come out strongly in favor of Net Neutrality and so have many others.

Please read this and hopefully you will understand why Net Neutrality is important. If not, I really cannot explain it any better. I quote Obama here

" November 10, 2014

An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.

“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality."

I don't think anybody considers Obama or for that matter the Democratic party as pro-free-market. Obamacare is simplistically a socialist policy which even India, which has the word "socialist" in its preamble, don't have.

Oh by the way, just wanted to highlight a couple of points that I noticed on your links: (1) "The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute." (2) The article on the Libertarian Party was written by an intern, not an expert on this topic.

All the best.

Alright, thanks for pointing to the disclaimers. I only wanted to say that the pro-free-market organizations do not support net neutrality. They have openly thrown their weight behind their positions. You can search, if you want. But since their credibility have been questioned, no amount of links would help, do they?

Finally, it is the clash of ideologies that we see here. About how free should freedom be? The libertarian view is that it should be absolute.

Originally Posted by Guite

Aren't we enjoying that freedom right now, freedom to access any website we want? And fighting to keep that freedom.

That would remain. You just have to choose the right plan.

Even as an end user I certainly would not like restrictive plan like DTH companies force on us. I can't choose to subscribe to just HD channels. Even then all HD channels are not is the basket, I have to pay extra for Sony Pix, for example. Imagine similar scenario on Internet access. I don't like it already. Tsk1979 had posted on nice screenshot of Facebook access in Indonesia. You get access to text content, but you want to see a photo posted by a friend, maybe just one photo. Pay the ISP!

Well, I am not sure about the authenticity of that pic, when we have a guy around who built all his reputation using Adobe Photoshop. However, I would definitely not like to see such a message pop up on my screen. But if I am on a free internet, I can't help it, right? I'd rather have the users vote with their wallets by signing up for a unrestricted data plan than legislate to make the restricted data plan unlawful.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by blacksport

I only wanted to say that the pro-free-market organizations do not support net neutrality.

Finally, it is the clash of ideologies that we see here. About how free should freedom be? The libertarian view is that it should be absolute.

Well, in an ideal world, absolute freedom would entail unlimited ISP's. Unfortunately, that's definitely not the case here. To make matters worse, even the few players allowed resort to cartelization to maximise profits, which basically means there is no real freedom of choice for your average user.

Well, I am not sure about the authenticity of that pic, when we have a guy around who built all his reputation using Adobe Photoshop. However, I would definitely not like to see such a message pop up on my screen. But if I am on a free internet, I can't help it, right? I'd rather have the users vote with their wallets by signing up for a unrestricted data plan than legislate to make the restricted data plan unlawful.

Users voting with their wallets is a term which is misused in a closed market. It's like saying, if you don't wish to pay toll on the Bombay Pune highway take another route. But hey, guess what the government and the businessmen colluded to make all roads tolled. Was it a violation of the NHAI rules? Yes. Was it a change from the original terms of the toll agreement? Yes, in favour of the toll operator. Now, where was the option of voting with their wallets?

People do not trust Airtel based on prior experiences. In an earlier post of mine, I pointed out that zero rating has been going on for some time, but this hue and cry started only with the Airtel initiative. Why's that???

If people believe that Airtel is going to start charging ridiculous amounts as alleged in the Indonesia case, then they'd be stupid to wait till that happens.

Basically, an Isp should charge for the bandwidth. Premiums should be payable based on data consumption and speed of connection and Quality of service. Anything else is just an attempt to swindle people, irrespective of what your Libertrian philosophy might say.

Also, what's the credibility of an intern, especially when there is no mention of a guide who is an expert? So basically it's just the point of view of an average Joe, probably one who is still too young to comprehend the full import of a philosophy she is propounding.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by mallumowgli

Is Net Neutrality an Economic model or an ethical question?

I would say it starts as a debate on an economic model, but its boundaries are for many more an ethical question.

Originally Posted by blacksport

I don't think anybody considers Obama or for that matter the Democratic party as pro-free-market. Obamacare is simplistically a socialist policy which even India, which has the word "socialist" in its preamble, don't have.

That's an interesting perspective. In post second world war Europe just about all European nations have introduced elaborate Health care schemes under a variety of left, centre, right and ulta right wing governements. I don't think anybody in Europe would think of Obamacare, or any system that tries to ensure proper health care is available to all society, is socialistic.

They would say it's what a civilized society is about. It's just what decent human do. Endless variations on how it is organisation, how it is funded etc but no debate about that a civilised society provides and has good access for everybody to proper heatlh care. Same is true for education.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

.
Also, what's the credibility of an intern, especially when there is no mention of a guide who is an expert? So basically it's just the point of view of an average Joe, probably one who is still too young to comprehend the full import of a philosophy she is propounding.

I think that is actually a bit of a derogative remark. Are you saying that everything I believed in, the opinions I had when I was twenty years of age, were just the foolish unsophisticated thoughts of a very young adult average Joe? And therefor, at the time should have disregarded?

Jeroen

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I think that is actually a bit of a derogative remark. Are you saying that everything I believed in, the opinions I had when I was twenty years of age, were just the foolish unsophisticated thoughts of a very young adult average Joe? And therefor, at the time should have disregarded?

Jeroen

No, that is not what I said. All voices count, irrespective of the persons age, but an intern's viewpoint cannot be considered as representative of an organisation's viewpoint, without reference to someone senior. I was young too, a long time ago.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

That's an interesting perspective. In post second world war Europe just about all European nations have introduced elaborate Health care schemes under a variety of left, centre, right and ulta right wing governements. I don't think anybody in Europe would think of Obamacare, or any system that tries to ensure proper health care is available to all society, is socialistic.

They would say it's what a civilized society is about. It's just what decent human do. Endless variations on how it is organisation, how it is funded etc but no debate about that a civilised society provides and has good access for everybody to proper heatlh care. Same is true for education.

Whether it is essential or not is a point that need not be debated, but even accepting that it is essential, the fact remains that it is socialistic. There are capitalist economies that have some socialist policies (USA), socialist policies that have some capitalist policies (China) and mixed economies that use both. Policies could be selected depending on the larger good. But when you decide to privatize the telecom sector, sell spectrum to them, charge licence fees, collect taxes on their profits, it is not right to dictate their business model. If they want, they can nationalize the telecom sector and run it the way they want.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

Well, in an ideal world, absolute freedom would entail unlimited ISP's. Unfortunately, that's definitely not the case here. To make matters worse, even the few players allowed resort to cartelization to maximise profits, which basically means there is no real freedom of choice for your average user.


Users voting with their wallets is a term which is misused in a closed market. It's like saying, if you don't wish to pay toll on the Bombay Pune highway take another route. But hey, guess what the government and the businessmen colluded to make all roads tolled. Was it a violation of the NHAI rules? Yes. Was it a change from the original terms of the toll agreement? Yes, in favour of the toll operator. Now, where was the option of voting with their wallets?

You definitely have a point there. And I agree with your argument that free market policies often don't work in the short term. But I do not agree that we should legislate base on no evidence, but mere speculations.

People do not trust Airtel based on prior experiences. In an earlier post of mine, I pointed out that zero rating has been going on for some time, but this hue and cry started only with the Airtel initiative. Why's that???

Pause a minute to ponder why you should not ask for nationalizing the telecom sector? Why do you want to have all the benefits of privatization, but not allow them to be their self?

Basically, an Isp should charge for the bandwidth. Premiums should be payable based on data consumption and speed of connection and Quality of service. Anything else is just an attempt to swindle people, irrespective of what your Libertrian philosophy might say.

Do car companies charge based on per kg weight + quality of service? A piece of metal acquires value based on what it is used for. If I find more value using a bit to send voice data than textual data, the ISP is justified in charging differently. It is not the bit, but the value contained in the bit that is important.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by blacksport

snip----
But when you decide to privatize the telecom sector, sell spectrum to them, charge licence fees, collect taxes on their profits, it is not right to dictate their business model. If they want, they can nationalize the telecom sector and run it the way they want.

snip----
Pause a minute to ponder why you should not ask for nationalizing the telecom sector? Why do you want to have all the benefits of privatization, but not allow them to be their self?

That's hilarious. That's the same as saying since Fortis etc have entered into healthcare, private entities, they can carry out drug prescriptions and tests without getting Fda equivalent approvals, headache treatment involves a hip replacement. Privatization does not mean a free-for-all. You're free to do business, but as per the Law of the land, and fairly, under watch of an elected body.
How does that even imply that they're being suppressed?
Freedom, nose, stick.

By what measure, or example, or pre -requisites have businesses worked anytime, anywhere, in the world with absolutely no say by the law of the land, in known history, that you keep quoting that?


Ps: the op has snips.

[ashua]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Do car companies charge based on per kg weight + quality of service? A piece of metal acquires value based on what it is used for. If I find more value using a bit to send voice data than textual data, the ISP is justified in charging differently. It is not the bit, but the value contained in the bit that is important.

Again a fundamental flaw in the understanding.

Car is a product of a car company. They build it. They own it and the ownership is transferred to you when you buy it. They are free to set whatever price they want for their product.

ISPs don't own the bits and bytes that pass over their network. They are mere transportation providers of that data. What they are trying to do is act as if they own the data and be the decision makers of which data goes and which does not, at what speed, so on an so forth.

What is being argued is that it is not their decision to make. They should ask for a price for the transportation (they can increase it to whatever extent they please) and nothing more especially since every bit and byte that arrives to their door is equal.