[zenren]

Originally Posted by mayankk

Sorry, but if all was hunky dory, what prompted Fk to withdraw from the service.

Flipkart backed off because the recent events forced them to do so, not because they felt it was the right thing to do. They were probably trying to reach out to a new clientele who doesn't currently subscribe to data plan in their phones which could eventually translate to a higher customer base. However, with majority of the netizens (who are the real consumers of flipkart currently) against this move, a boycott from this crowd can bring flipkart down and this fear resulted in their change in stance. They are still operating in loss but are floating because of the VC money pumped into it and the high valuations. If the valuation goes down, there would be no more VC money and in turn, that would be the end of story for a once successful online bookseller.

Originally Posted by kvish

Lets see the 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."

The whole net neutrality debate is exploding because of airtel zero and flipkart signing up for it. By having the content provider pay for your web transaction, without in anyway blocking other transactions, doesn't make the net non neutral is what I was trying to say.

I disagree here. In the current context, we pay a reasonable amount for data plan on phones and we can access any apps/sites A, B or C according to our choice. The mobile companies have to price these plans reasonably since that is the only way they'll recover the costs they invested. With the Airtel Zero or similar initiatives, mobile companies are getting an alternate payment channel from the corporate who can profit since their customer base has multiplied several fold. So far, things look okay since the customer can still browse the non-free apps B or C if they want.

We are all agreeing that the mobile companies have the right to charge whatever they want for the data plans if they need to recover the spectrum license fees they paid in the auction. This means that we cannot complain if mobile companies increase the price of data plans to say, Rs. 1000 per month or so. This would result in majority of users ditching data plans and using just the free apps. Mobile companies would recover this loss of revenue from their alternate channel partners who would be more than happy to compensate. The Airtel Zero partners have a vested interest in increasing this price, since it would give the Airtel Zero platform absolute monopoly of mobile internet. Now, we have an anti-competitive monopolistic practice where app A is the only provider that is accessible to users. If the free apps and the alternate revenue stream doesn't exist, increasing the price would be direct loss of revenue for mobile companies and hence they wouldn't do it beyond a certain limit.

Originally Posted by sharadmumbai

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

Let us say this BMW and Nano are both heading to one of the 3 shopping malls in that direction. There is an elevated flyover that directly leads to one of these malls, though it is not their preferred choice and bypasses the other two. Eventually, most vehicles get frustrated with the traffic and decide to take the flyover. The owners of the Mall A (where flyover leads to) would probably bribe the government to ensure the traffic situation below the flyover doesn't improve and they benefit the most out of it. This is what would happen with Airtel Zero eventually.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

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.

What channel are you talking about? Circuit switched or packet switched? Data is now entirely packet switched, there is no question of channels.

Originally Posted by sharadmumbai

I guess most people havn't understood the airtel zero

Yes, you are right about that.

Originally Posted by sharadmumbai

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?

You are wrong because tollfree phone service is something anybody can avail for a fixed fee. If flipkart got tollfree phone service, so can I. But Airtel Zero is not like that. Google gets it for free because Airtel needs Google more than Google needs Airtel. But Flipkart has to do revenue sharing. If I want my customers to access my website for free, I have to do revenue sharing, not just pay some fixed fee. The revenue sharing can be heavily stacked against the small guy. See post #7 for a clear example.

Originally Posted by sharadmumbai

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!!!!

This again shows that you have not understand net neutrality. I have competitors who outspend me 10,000 times over in marketing expense. But it doesn't bother me. Do you know why? Because they don't stand between me and my customers. They are competing along with me for the same customer. I can deal with that, have been dealing with that. That is how normal business is conducted.

Now let's go back your original example, tollfree phone. I'll show you why it is even more wrong analogy. The toll free phone has a fixed fee and is used for communicating with the customer. The service/product itself is not delivered through tollfree phone. Therefore, if the tollfree provider makes the phone service too expensive, I can switch to email/sms or whatapp to communicate with the customer. But Internet these days is not merely a mode of communication, it is how the service is delivered. If you are buying a streaming video service, it is delivered on the same pipe. If you have switched to cloud computing, you are accessing all your servers over Internet. All your customers are getting your products/services over Internet. If somebody steps on that pipe and chokes it, and demands a share of your revenue, you have nowhere to turn. If somebody does that to tollfree number, I can switch to a different tollfree provider in a day. But my customers could be connected to my cloud services via 100 different ISPs all over the world, whom all can I pay to lift their foot from the pipe?

Example: My service is hosted via ISP X, but my customers are on ISP A, B, C, D, etc. Without net neutrality, I have to make a revenue share deal with ISP A, B, C... to allow free traffic to my site.

Do you still think it is same as tollfree number?

Originally Posted by sharadmumbai

I'm for net neutrality totally, whole heartedly but we must see beyond the smoke.

Yes, the smoke is being spread by ISP lobbyists to confuse the public. I have been in the telephony domain (analog->TDM->VOIP) since 25 years and have been providing cloud services since 15 years, so I am able to look through the smoke.

Originally Posted by Isnescrpy

Bandwidth is a finite resource and technology to implement FUP is super expensive.

Why is FUP super expensive? It is just a matter of configuration. I am familiar with network programming and configurations. These are simple things to implement.

[rajeshsundaram]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Why is FUP super expensive? It is just a matter of configuration. I am familiar with network programming and configurations. These are simple things to implement.

Agree with Samurai. Everything is Configurable through software in the ISP domain, to be more precise anything in a Network.

Technically, the data plans you use are nothing but a set of rules applied to a particular IP address, or SIM card or a MAC address. Creating and implementing a plan is just a matter of minutes. People who are in the networking - especially those who are more related to Telecom Networks know this.

Internally all plans are just a bunch of RULES which are saved as PROFILES (PLANS). Further these are automated using WORKFLOW rules to manage the plans / connections effectively. Once a configuration is done PROPERLY, it works forever for any scale.

There are no cost involved in configuration. The real cost to ISPs is all about the buying and installing hardware, and manage a scalable Infrastructure.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Samurai

What channel are you talking about? Circuit switched or packet switched? Data is now entirely packet switched, there is no question of channels.

All your mobile data (voice or packet) is sent on channels "on air" in 3G networks. The question is whether a particular service can use a shared (contention-based) channel or needs a dedicated channel. Browsing can use the shared channel and users will not probably know the difference. Large data transfer (file download or streaming) can possibly use a shared channel, but only at the cost of user experience.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

Browsing can use the shared channel and users will not probably know the difference. Large data transfer (file download or streaming) can possibly use a shared channel, but only at the cost of user experience.

Can you be more specific about the channel you are speaking about? Which communication protocol is this, please mention RFC for that protocol.

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

All your mobile data (voice or packet) is sent on channels "on air" in 3G networks. The question is whether a particular service can use a shared (contention-based) channel or needs a dedicated channel. Browsing can use the shared channel and users will not probably know the difference. Large data transfer (file download or streaming) can possibly use a shared channel, but only at the cost of user experience.

Yes, there are still channels at the wireless level. In addition, there are different QoS levels (9 in 4G) with different priorities which affect how the traffic is handled, prioritized and even admitted for a call. There are also user classes which affect these. There is a lot of manipulation that can be done based on user and type of services and these can affect the IP traffic through DSCP etc and also at ethernet level on the backhaul and traffic on the internet.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by srishiva

Yes, there are still channels at the wireless level. In addition, there are different QoS levels (9 in 4G) with different priorities which affect how the traffic is handled, prioritized and even admitted for a call.

For voice, obviously. PSTN is entirely circuit switched even now, that means dedicated channel for each call.

Originally Posted by srishiva

There are also user classes which affect these. There is a lot of manipulation that can be done based on user and type of services and these can affect the IP traffic through DSCP etc and also at ethernet level on the backhaul and traffic on the internet.

This is also true, it is used for internal manipulation. However, if I mark my packets with DSCP bits, they are just going to erase it as it enters their network.

What StarrySky is saying is that if I am running youtube in browser tab, and access Team-BHP in another browser tab, the 3G will assign different class channels to it. My contention is they won't. Both will be given equal preference, and will be on a packet switched mode, not dedicated channels. If the packets are not arriving fast enough, youtube widget will display "buffering..." message.

[ashlil]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

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



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.

I think you have mis-interpreted the article. A better way to explain the idea of the article would be saying 250kbps of video is no different from 250kbps of text. They would stress the system exactly the same way. A packet in the internet is a packet. Whether the packet is a video packet or text packet should not determine its value.

Originally Posted by kvish

Although I am in support of net neutrality, I fail to see how airtel zero is linked to net neutrality. This service is pure economics and nothing to do with internet. This is happening across all industries and part and parcel of our daily lives. Let me give you examples:
1. I receive a free subscription of a Times of India newspaper because I am a subscriber of deccan herald. Is there a problem? Will deccan herald sue times of India as not being neutral? Times of India is paying the newspaper vendor to deliver the same to my doorstep too! Newspaper delivery channels didnt stop my deccan herald newspaper either. Can you ban newspaper delivery agents?.
2. Ebay offered me 2000 cash back on a refrigerator that I bought from a seller. Should we close ebay because other vendors cannot offer cashback?
3. If you take an ola cab ride, there was an offer for free talk time. Would you shut down ola for it?
4. Tollfree numbers, etc etc list goes on.

Its simple, as long as companies have resources to manage their advertizing spends, they will do it. As long as airtel is not preventing access to other websites, I cant see how this can be related to net neutrality.

Consider this aspect, if you please. Team-BHP, because of the low revenue generated, cannot opt for Airtel zero. Now, commercial auto sites, being very rich, are there in the zero plan by paying hafta to airtel. In this case, do you think team-bhp would reach the deserved heights? Net-neutrality necessitates no positive discrimination as well as negative discrimination.

[srishiva]

Originally Posted by Samurai

For voice, obviously. PSTN is entirely circuit switched even now, that means dedicated channel for each call.

This is also true, it is used for internal manipulation. However, if I mark my packets with DSCP bits, they are just going to erase it as it enters their network.

What StarrySky is saying is that if I am running Youtube in browser tab, and access Team-BHP in another browser tab, the 3G will assign different class channels to it. My contention is they won't. Both will be given equal preference, and will be on a packet switched mode, not dedicated channels. If the packets are not arriving fast enough, Youtube widget will display "buffering..." message.

StarrySky is absolutely right. Channels are assigned based on type of traffic. QoS also depends on type of traffic. There are 9 different types. Even if the amount of traffic going on dedicated channels are switched to shared channels.

And also based on the user, one can be kicked out from a session based on priority. There is a lot of logic that can be used to manipulate. We develop them and not sure how the carriers use them. There are even classes of user Platinum, Gold etc.

[apachelongbow]

I am a little confused, so please bear with me on this.
How is airtel zero different from say tata sky pay per view or a boutique of services? If airtel wants you to access a couple of sites for free, and pay data usage for the rest, how will it affect the end user, in fact going ahead may be the end user can configure the data plans to cater to the types, and individual websites he/she wants to access.

What little I could gather from this discussion and from wiki was that net neutrality is required to ensure all websites are accessible at the same speeds and bandwidth of the one paying the operator is not increased thereby choking off the ones not able to or willing to pay the operator. I agree it is bad and stacked up against a small player or a startup, but business is always like that. All industries and business, the guy with more money has more leverage than the guy with lesser resources.
Even in our temples don't we have VIP lines for the people ready to pay?

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Can you be more specific about the channel you are speaking about? Which communication protocol is this, please mention RFC for that protocol.

Here is some information on the different types of UMTS channels. These are part of the UMTS radio network specifications and are defined by 3GPP in their 25.xxx series of specifications.

[msdivy]

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.

As mentioned by other members, this is the job of the IT dept of your college or your company. For you web conf is important and youtube isn't. For the company next door, youtube might be critical and web conf isn't. So it is the companies which should make the policies, not ISPs.

Originally Posted by Isnescrpy

So why should a service like Netflix be allowed to inundate the Internet pipe to the point where other traffic gets treated sub-optimally?

If users have paid for bandwidth, it doesn't matter whether they use netflix or skype or whatsapp or any other service. Why should ISP bother?

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

If airtel wants you to access a couple of sites for free, and pay data usage for the rest, how will it affect the end user, in fact going ahead may be the end user can configure the data plans to cater to the types, and individual websites he/she wants to access.

Please check my post: http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/shifti...ml#post3685995

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by srishiva

StarrySky is absolutely right. Channels are assigned based on type of traffic. QoS also depends on type of traffic. There are 9 different types. Even if the amount of traffic going on dedicated channels are switched to shared channels.

I don't see how he is absolutely right or even partially right.

QoS can depend on traffic, but which traffic?

Mobile phones send/receive payloads like voice, sms, user data and then signalling for the same. So if we consider 3 payloads and 3 signalling traffic, the QoS for them will be different because it serves the requirement of mobile networks.

But we are considering only user data here. The 3G uses HTTP for web traffic and RTSP for youtube video, both are riding on TCP. Will the packets have different QoS, who is marking the DSCP bits on these packets? Is google marking the DSCP bits, are the mobile networks respecting the DSCP bits on packets coming from youtube servers? If yes, why? Who paid them to respect the DSCP bits from youtube servers?

[::CMS::]

I dont understand what are we arguing? Irrespective of the content, the traffic in a network is using simple packets, protocols are just logical reasoning to create a packet and the communication thereafter. As an infrastructure provider, his duty is to provide enough bandwidth to any customer which is promised during signup. To me its a trick by the ISPs to squeeze as much as possible from their existing infrastructure, if their argument is some data is chocking up their n/w. If it is indeed, then the problem is with the ISPs that they dont have enough infrastructure to cater the customer base they currently have, instead they are trying to squeeze the users (both content providers and normal users) for that.
Moreover the infrastructure they are mentioning is not their property, its public property and they are got it only on lease. So they cannot make "extra profit" on others' expense by creating an inequality situation.

[Lalvaz]

While Airtel Zero is against the concept of "Net Neutrality" in the strict sense of the word, its a little surprising that it has evoked such a strong response from individual users, who incidentally will not have to shell out additional funds(At least not as of now). Consider that other telcos are currently bundling free net access to specific apps without any protests from anyone. The only logical reason for this huge protest seems to be the high levels of trust deficit that Airtel enjoys. Maybe Airtel needs to do some introspection to understand why they alone are being singled out for violating Net Neutrality, when others are already offering similar schemes.