[rahulsnh]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I am sure competitors will emerge if it is profitable. As for them they cannot afford to have a few million unsubscribe!

Well, will presence of competitors cure if they kill competition by forming cartels? I've seen when someone else pays for a thing one uses then they even dictate how it is to be used and who gets to show up. That by itself is not a fair ground. You rightly said that there is no free lunch; to which I will add that you pay for lunch upfront or its cost you higher in form of a shadow payment. Look at the price of time we kill by watching adverts on TV because we're not willing to pay for TV.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Remnants of socialism. Take a look at the 2016 US presidential candidates. The divide is clear. All republicans (Trump, Paul, Rubio, Cruz, Rubio) are against net neutrality while the dems (Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley) are for it.

The concept of utilities being neutral has nothing to do with Socialism or capitalism. Just because a utility is being neutral, does not mean that it becomes a subsidy.
Imagine, if BESCOM said that LG washing machines will get electricity at 50% rate. Or having a Bajaj ceiling fan would mean lower cost of electricity.

Internet is still not properly classified as a utility, but is actually becoming one. In the modern world, you cannot survive without piped water and electricity. Same is becoming true for the internet, with most services moving online.

This is the crux of the matter. Utilities cannot be allowed to be not neutral. They can charge what they like, but they cannot differentiate.

In the USA, internet providers do not want to be classified as utilities, but want all benefits (eg grants to lay fiber). They took public money for laying fiber, but used it to pay themselves bonuses. When you take public money and use public infrastructure, you become a utility. Sure you can bribe your favorite politician to change the law, but that does not make it right.

This whole socialism and communism angle is simply stupid. Gas companies are not allowed to give you cheaper gas if you use a certain brand stove. Is that socialism/communism?

A utility should behave like a utility. A common carrier is a utility.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Remnants of socialism. Take a look at the 2016 US presidential candidates. The divide is clear. All republicans (Trump, Paul, Rubio, Cruz, Rubio) are against net neutrality while the dems (Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley) are for it.

Leave the US presidential candidates out of this for now. Please state your stance. Are you now against Net Neutrality?

So far your stance appeared to be only Pro Free Basics and your argument was that it was not against Net Neutrality, but it was only a very charitable way to connect the unconnected masses.

Am I right in understanding that you've now dropped your pretence and are now fully against the concept of a neutral Internet?

BTW, as others have already pointed out, its got nothing to do with Socialism or Capitalism, but then, you just love to muddy the waters, even if you know you're not making any sense whatsoever.

[rahulsnh]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

BTW, as others have already pointed out, its got nothing to do with Socialism or Capitalism, but then, you just love to muddy the waters, even if you know you're not making any sense whatsoever.

Totally agree. Its so hard to understand on which side he stands, now.

I think the ideas of XYZism, are remnants by themselves. China is a case in point!

[lancer_rit]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

I am sure competitors will emerge if it is profitable. As for them they cannot afford to have a few million unsubscribe!

Yes, but it will end up further fragmenting the internet and WWW into islands - the FB island, G island and so on. How could that ever be beneficial for consumers in the middle to long run ?
Why would we not be able to access the whole WWW/internet as it has always been from the beginning ? And bear in mind, guys like FB could only attain success because they didnt get discriminated against by Free* and *zero nets which promoted their competitors.

So, thumbs down to Airtel Zero and FreeBasics and all similar guys who want to promote their corporate interests masquerading under 'charity' and bringing hundreds of millions of poor Indians out of 'isolation'.

[mayankk]

Reminds me of an old Bajaj lighting ad, "jab main chhotta baccha tha..."

http://www.scoopwhoop.com/Trai-Faceb...et-Neutrality/

Trai said only 1.89 million had responded against Facebook's January 6 claim of more than 11 million

[dark.knight]

There are many mysteries in how companies market their products & services, none quite so mysterious as FB's extremely aggressive Free Basics pitch. As a person of business training, both by education & in real world, its not difficult for me to see what it is they seek.

What the initial promise is, is free internet to certain websites for unlimited surfing, unconditionally. This could be how it is for the first year, or even first 2 years, but longer than that would mean this scam er scheme to be unprecedented & earth shattering as far as businesses go. Every business, be it the most essential of them like power supply, water supply & medical aid cost money to the consumer & that's a good thing in some ways.. people choose quality/quality based on affordability, those who charge more provide better infrastructure or better service. I trust companies that charge a premium, but I think 1000 times before trusting companies that keep yelling out from rooftops "FREE!" "DEAL!" "OFFER!".. hence my utter disregard & hatred for companies like Flipkart, Amazon etc.

FB loves data harvesting, FB loves advertising, FB loves to hand out statistics to whoever has the money to pay them. FB is well integrated with corporates+common public+data mining companies. Think of it this way, if it were your singular goal to have 100% of a country join the internet in some form what would you do? Yes, give it free.. even if its a half-baked free, but FREE nonetheless and keep regurgitating the FREE part. After that is achieved how do you reap out of them for the extremely heavy initial investments? Yes, start charging your newly gathered sheep.. 2$ a sheep would still mean 2$ billion in an instant and that's just the start. The internet as we know it relies heavily on traffic, if only certain websites are made freely accessible then only they would be profitable leaving the rest to rot away slowly.

Once the wheel is in motion there is no stopping it, if still my post made no dent then for the jugaad loving Indians - enjoy your forbidden fruit.

[mayankk]

TRAI pulls up facebook, similar to what the pulic has been doing:
http://indianexpress.com/article/tec...et-neutrality/

Whats to be seen now is if the govt and the operators will be so accommodating of business so as to ignore all public opinion.

[mayankk]

And, Slap!!

http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/A...30012016001067




Telecom regulator Trai is set to reject differential pricing for data services, a move that would mean the end of controversial services like Facebook's Free Basics and Airtel Zero.
Trai will issue an order to this effect within a week, top sources told TOI. The order is also expected to bar free or subsidised data packages that offer access to only select services, such as Facebook, Twitter or WhatsApp messenger. “These are discriminatory and are against the concept of digital democracy. We will not allow them,“ a source said.

The regulator's stand will clear the confusion over net neutrality . There were apprehensions over the manner in which free Internet was being offered, after the introduction of some zero-rated platforms with preferential treatment to a few websites for a fee.

This will come as a setback for Facebook and Airtel, which have campaigned hea vily for zero-rated platforms. Telecom regulator Trai is set to disallow vertical integration where a telecom operator could offer its own services such, as music or instant messenger, at a subsidised price, putting other similar service providers at a disadvantage.

After wide-ranging consultations with internet players, telecom operators, industry associations and consumer groups, the regulator feels there should not be any discrimination when it comes to access to internet. “Trai is not in favour of zero-rated platforms or differential tariffs as these have a tendency to create a distortion in the way internet is accessed by the masses,“ the source said.

One of the sources said Trai will go by the provisions laid down in the license agreement that telecom companies and internet service providers have signed with the government. “Clauses in the license agreement clearly state that the licensee has to ensure unrestricted access to the internet.There should not be any discrimination when offering services. We will rely on these provisions while issuing the new regulation,“ the source said.

Anil Ambani's Reliance Communications was Facebook's only telecom partner in India to offer access to the Free Basics platform. It was asked by Trai to shut down the services in December till a decision on the subject is taken.

[Samurai]

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/telec...-lateststories

And... India will have Net neutrality. Violators will be fined ₹50,000 a day.

Now, I hope TRAI will take another look at the last bastion of anti-net neutrality, the VOIP ban. Please get rid of that law, and make the Internet truly neutral in India.

[Eddy]

Good news indeed !

But is there a loophole in the policy somewhere that can be exploited ? I mean is it clear enough ? Can Reliance ensure that a user pays equal (per MB) for Facebook and Orkut but Facebook gets more bandwidth and loads faster - technically as well as compliant with the policy ?

[antz.bin]

Originally Posted by Eddy

Good news indeed !

But is there a loophole in the policy somewhere that can be exploited ? I mean is it clear enough ? Can Reliance ensure that a user pays equal (per MB) for Facebook and Orkut but Facebook gets more bandwidth and loads faster - technically as well as compliant with the policy ?

Talking from the point of view of an ISP, such parity between loading times will always exist as long as they keep using caching servers to precache frequently downloaded content. This is done purely to save bandwidth on the ISP side and it ends up improving QoS for everyone on that network.

Such preaching ensures that the ISP doesn't need to query Microsoft servers again and again for Windows updates and Google play for app update downloads, freeing up expensive bandwidth for more work. But this strategy also means that YouTube & Hotstar will continue to load substantially faster than Metacafe(which is not as famous as these 2).

Net Neutrality or not, this is a tradeoff which we will have to live with if we want to enjoy cheap high speed connectivity.

[sgiitk]

Now TRAI has pronounced, let was watch and wait. Also, one thing good, the policy is not for all time, but to be reviewed every two years. Must be one the the rare incoidents where Bharat Sarkar accepts that life is dynamic.

[sathish81]

Originally Posted by antz.bin

Talking from the point of view of an ISP, such parity between loading times will always exist as long as they keep using caching servers to precache frequently downloaded content. This is done purely to save bandwidth on the ISP side and it ends up improving QoS for everyone on that network.

Such preaching ensures that the ISP doesn't need to query Microsoft servers again and again for Windows updates and Google play for app update downloads, freeing up expensive bandwidth for more work. But this strategy also means that YouTube & Hotstar will continue to load substantially faster than Metacafe(which is not as famous as these 2).

Net Neutrality or not, this is a tradeoff which we will have to live with if we want to enjoy cheap high speed connectivity.

The parity becomes huge if Rcom and FB setup a Internet Exchange point. Using policies it is technically feasible to ensure all FB bound traffic lands on exchange point and gets switched at high speed (possibly 100 gig and atleast 40gig). The user experience for FB (FB partners) will be many times better for Rcom customers. Most users will never visit any other site than those that have a tie up with FB.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by Samurai

http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/telec...-lateststories

And... India will have Net neutrality. Violators will be fined ₹50,000 a day.

Now, I hope TRAI will take another look at the last bastion of anti-net neutrality, the VOIP ban. Please get rid of that law, and make the Internet truly neutral in India.

I wonder how a violation may be detected.
And what are the means available to log such issues.

I repeatedly get call drops, but to date I have to see any "violations" and punitive actions.