[anandm78]

Originally Posted by kvish

Fair point. But the politics example takes a different ball game. If I were AAP supporter, I would take the free ride and vote for AAP But thats for a different discussion.

Yes, that's correct. But the scheme proposed by Airtel is even worse in that you cannot vote for anyone other that the one that transported you. That's why I added the hypothetical case of the system colluding with the political party in the election example. If Flipkart were still part of Airtel zero a customer can shop at Flipkart for free - buy or don't buy - but then to shop elsewhere he'll need to pay. And Flipkart could potentially outpay Snapdeal for instance to keep them out of free access.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Isnescrpy

I see both sides of this debate. Consider in a company of 10 employees, 9 eat up the entire bandwidth watching YouTube and the 1 person who wants to attend a web conference, can't. That's not fair.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality argument. If this happened in a company, it is the internal problem of a company. Don't blame outside entities. If somebody is downloading too much from home connection, the FUP kicks in once they exceed their limit.

ISP should only give us a pipe into the Internet with certain bandwidth (say 16Mbps) and certain volume (say 80GB/month) for a certain price. That's it. They shouldn't poke their nose into where we connect using that pipe. That is net neutrality.

[Quatro]

In my view, net neutrality has to got to do with providing similar speed access to all the sites. While agreeing that small and new entrants may lose out, I do not consider airtel zero as against net neutrality. Whether to charge or not for particular service is decision of Airtel. I can think of following similar examples:

In earlier times, people had to paid AOL and VSNL to maintain their email accounts. That changed when hotmail came on scene and allowed free email accounts. Hotmail got sidelined when Gmail came with their service and offered huge storage space a- almost unlimited. Today Gmail dominates, but I did not aware of any protests when it started its free service.

Other example: today incoming calls are free on mobiles. When it started, one had to pay equal amount of charges for receiving the call as one did for making. One service provider offered free incoming calls - there was a High Court judgement against it on the basis that free incoming calls with clog the signals and disrupt the service. Today everybody gets free incoming - I wonder what happened to the argument of signals getting cloged.

As long as Airtel is providing equal access to other websites ie in terms of speed and bandwith, I do not think they are violating net neutrality. Whether to levy data charges for access to certain website is a commercial decision.

[Samurai]

Net neutrality is not an easy concept to understand. I see many here taking sides without understanding the concept. I can live with that.

What makes me really scared is whether the law makers will understand this well enough to make the right decision.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by Quatro

In my view, net neutrality has to got to do with providing similar speed -------snip------- for access to certain website is a commercial decision.

The examples are actually counter to the argument. What Airtel is pitching for is equivalent to hotmail closing down, and vsnl etc charging for maintaining email accounts, in that timeline.
Basically, regressive.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by John

Informative article by Firstpost on the costs incurred by ISP's/telecom operators
http://www.firstpost.com/business/ne...e-2195984.html

I do not know about the price ISPs pay for each GB, but the following statement from the article got me thinking:

So, once it's agreed that 1 GB of video does not stress telecom networks more than 1 GB of text messages, there is absolutely no justification for telcos to discriminate on the basis of what these 0’s and 1’s will ultimately be put together into.

1GB of video (for eg: a YouTube video) is usually real-time and if the user does not get real-time data, the user experience is poor. The user may be ok with a few frames missing as long as he does not perceive too much delay in playing the video. 1GB of text messages is non-real time, the user expects to receive every byte of data correctly, even if it takes a little bit longer. So these have different quality of service requirements. I think real time data stresses the telecom networks more, especially on the radio side.

[Pri2]

Sorry to say, but I believe you still haven't understood the basic concept of Net Neutrality.

Definition:The principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

Here are the reasons why your examples are flawed while comparing with the current situation of Net Neutrality violation by Airtel.

In earlier times, people had to paid AOL and VSNL to maintain their email accounts. That changed when hotmail came on scene and allowed free email accounts. Hotmail got sidelined when Gmail came with their service and offered huge storage space a- almost unlimited. Today Gmail dominates, but I did not aware of any protests when it started its free service.

To begin with, HotMail and Gmail are not Internet service providers. If AOL / VSNL had made exclusive deals with Hotmail or Gmail to make it free on their network while being paid on other networks, then that would be violation net neautrality.

Other example: today incoming calls are free on mobiles. When it started, one had to pay equal amount of charges for receiving the call as one did for making. One service provider offered free incoming calls - there was a High Court judgement against it on the basis that free incoming calls with clog the signals and disrupt the service. Today everybody gets free incoming - I wonder what happened to the argument of signals getting cloged.

This inst even remotely related to net neutrality.
Network getting clogged may have been a ploy to extort more money from customers. But again it is their own network and not the free internet that they were controlling. Telephone network operators are free to charge their customers whatever they want and I dont think there is a law that stops them from doing that. Fortunately competition doesn't let them do that.

As long as Airtel is providing equal access to other websites ie in terms of speed and bandwith, I do not think they are violating net neutrality. Whether to levy data charges for access to certain website is a commercial decision.

Providing free access to favored apps while charging for other apps violates the core principle of Net Neutrality (without favoring or blocking particular products or websites)

Here is an example:
Imagine tomorrow Mr X, who is a Billionaire decides to get into eCommerce. He has Billions of $ to invest in his new venture. He decides to setup the following:
- Shopping app
- Travel ticketing app
- Restaurant review / order app
- News app

He strikes a deal with all major telecom operators to provide all the above for free which will work without a data plan. To make the deal more attractive, he throws in some popular apps like FB, Whatsapp and twitter. A normal customer has everything he needs. Doesn't need any data pack pack for all the above things. He also sets a condition to make regular internet packs more expensive.

Now look at the endless possibilities that Mr X has in making money. He now can sell products on his shopping site, sell tickets on his ticketing site and favor restaurants (by taking commission ) on his review site. He can feed the public with propaganda supporting him and his interest via his free new site. He can manufacture news and also influence politics.

Now you tell me. How fair will this deal be to the FlipKart, RedBus, Amazon, Zomato?
How fair will this deal be to a startup who wants to make it big without a deep pocket?
How fair will this be to a person who figures this scam out and wants to access the open internet and shop from the eCommerce site of his choice?

This is why Net Neutrality matters!!

Hope I haven't confused you more.


Mod Note: Please do NOT reply to posts using bold text, as it leads to visual discomfort for readers. Additionally, it's inconvenient to quote & reply to such a post.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

So these have different quality of service requirements. I think real time data stresses the telecom networks more, especially on the radio side.

Unless the QOS is specified and respected, there is no difference.

When you watch youtube vs download a large file, the Internet treats your packets no different. QOS comes into play only if you have paid for a special pipe, such a thing applies to point-to-point connections. Internet does not give you desired QOS even if you mark the DSCP bits. For your DSCP bits to be respected, you have to pay for that 1-to-1 connection.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Unless the QOS is specified and respected, there is no difference.

When you watch Youtube vs download a large file, the Internet treats your packets no different. QOS comes into play only if you have paid for a special pipe, such a thing applies to point-to-point connections. Internet does not give you desired QOS even if you mark the DSCP bits. For your DSCP bits to be respected, you have to pay for that 1-to-1 connection.

1GB text download does not always mean downloading a large file. User can accumulate 1GB over a period of time. But 1GB streaming video is real time. Internet may not differentiate between the two, but I am quite sure 3G mobile networks handle both differently, in terms of the channels allocated for either type of data. For eg: on a 3G network, browsing may not need a dedicated channel for the user, whereas streaming video always does.

[RSR]

Good move by Flipkart to ditch Airtel Zero! Or rather, great move by netizens to force Flipkart to ditch the net neutrality violator!

Just a week or so ago, we got an Airtel pre-paid SIM for mom's use as a secondary number (and it's the first ever Airtel product in the family). It was the wrong choice, I guess. Never mind! That SIM is going to end up as several small pieces in the dust-bin very soon. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

This guy explains net neutrality in the Indian context in a simple and easy to understand manner. He explains the motives of these greedy net neutrality violators, and has caricatured them fittingly as well:

http://youtu.be/CIXwZpPVCfM

[sharadmumbai]

I guess most people havn't understood the airtel zero and confusing it to be against net neutrality whereas its not doing anything which it seems its doing.

Firstly, its not giving any preferential speed/bandwidth/access or any kind of advantage in reaching the users or their phones or their web pages. Its like calling a toll freeline which so many banks/service companies advertise. Whenever a user actually uses an app or upgrades or does any transaction, data gets consumed. In this scheme of things, instead of the user paying the charges, the app company pays for it.
How is it wrong i don't understand?
So if i call ICICI bank from a toll free line wherein ICICI pays for the call, its OK with all of us but if I use the ICICI bank app to do a transaction and use data, we are saying its wrong for ICICI bank to pay for it!!

Secondly debate about the large companies dominating small companies and not level playing field, then all marketing spend is wrong. TOI should charge the same rate for first page as it does for the inside page and on all days; the ad rates on all channels should be the same for all irrespective of the world cup of cricket or kabbadi!

In fact the online retailers are responsible for impacting the livelihood of so many small shopkeepers by selling goods below cost and garnering competition and in the process burning piles of cash as none of these online companies are close to operational breakeven! But no one is complaining as we are getting goods cheaper!
So we shouldn't then ask the Online retailers to not price the goods cheaper than the shopkeeper? I surely want them to sell as cheap as possible and keep burning cash as long as its not mine.

I'm for net neutrality totally, whole heartedly but we must see beyond the smoke.
Net neutrality simply means that I should have equal access to anything which I want to access at the same speed and without any filtering or throttling of speed. Its like a normal road and no separate lanes for anyone. A BMW and nano wait in the same traffic jam!
After that if I get free data, i am not complaining

[RSR]

It's very, very simple.

Speed is only one way in which net neutrality can be violated. Cost is another way.

In both cases, they are violations of net neutrality. Violators deserve all the flak they're getting. And more!

Our internet, our data. The telcos and ISPs can keep their greedy paws off our data. It's none of their business to discriminate against any of our data in any way - speed, cost or any other. Period!

[Isnescrpy]

Originally Posted by Samurai

This has nothing to do with net neutrality argument. If this happened in a company, it is the internal problem of a company. Don't blame outside entities. If somebody is downloading too much from home connection, the FUP kicks in once they exceed their limit.

ISP should only give us a pipe into the Internet with certain bandwidth (say 16Mbps) and certain volume (say 80GB/month) for a certain price. That's it. They shouldn't poke their nose into where we connect using that pipe. That is net neutrality.

I agree that an ISP shouldn't be the one deciding what the end user can and cannot do. However, the situation at that company, carries over to the ISP. Bandwidth is a finite resource and technology to implement FUP is super expensive. So why should a service like Netflix be allowed to inundate the Internet pipe to the point where other traffic gets treated sub-optimally?

That being said, ISPs who throttle competition to favour a partner is not acceptable. This in my opinion is the true violation of net neutrality.
Not taking sides, but I think there's more to net neutrality than what's believed to be portrayed by Airtel Zero.

[i74js]

Originally Posted by sharadmumbai

I guess most people havn't understood the airtel zero and confusing it to be against net neutrality whereas its not doing anything which it seems its doing.

Firstly, its not giving any preferential speed/bandwidth/access or any kind of advantage in reaching the users or their phones or their web pages.

May I suggest you to please find out the language of agreements being discussed between ISP and the companies subscribing for the new platform !
The complete picture is quite different, it has all the provisions of priority, consumer data usage, sites / browsing preferences etc getting shared with the subscribers.

Thus it is giving you free access to certain sites with higher band-width allocation, sharing the information with subscribers (companies) about your preference and browsing and even personal information - this is more like installing apps (of certain kinds) wherein you keep on using your brains to understand as to why this app wants me to compromise so much of information including my camera on the phone !

Remember Matrix 1999 - You stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. Its for us to figure out what to take - the blue or the red pill !

Cheers

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by kvish

I fail to see how airtel zero is linked to net neutrality.

Airtel Zero in its current form is absolutely brilliant value for customers. But this gives them absolute power to the ISPs. ISPs around the world have lost their credibility. They opposed free-incoming call. They opposed MNP. They are the ultimate weasel companies. I am 100% certain that Airtel Zero will be misused in the future - they will collect money from both subscribers & websites. They will block sites that don't pay them.

A good article on this: We Want Net Neutrality in India

This is a little like saying “If you drive a Mercedes, no toll on this highway for you, because Mercedes has paid the toll operator already”. It will be unacceptable, specifically as a toll operator on public infrastructure to do this.

And then you could say “Youtube is faster on Airtel than other web sites“. This again, is a hidden advantage to a Youtube. What Airtel is really telling you is: Access the guys who paid us, otherwise we will slow down the internet for you.

This is also harmful to the neutrality of the network. In the road example, assume there was one special lane only for Mercedes vehicles that was much smoother than the rest. Would you be fine with that? You’d want to use the same lane – after all, you paid to enter the tolled highway – but you can’t if you don’t own a Merc. Unacceptably divisive, and therefore, not Neutral.

Finally, you could say “Here’s a data pack, but we won’t let you use Skype on it“. Not Good. This is equivalent to saying, “on this toll road, we will not allow you to use Mahindra Reva Electric cars, because we have a deal with oil companies”. As you can see, this is unacceptable. In what is public infrastructure, what you drive cannot be a differentiator. You can charge tuition fees in a school, but can you deny access to Assamese students? That would be blatant discrimination. In that sense, if all traffic is equal then no traffic can be banned (with the exception of “banned” illegal websites, but that is equivalent to saying you can’t drive into this road because this car is marked stolen, which is a fair restriction).