[nareshov]

Originally Posted by Samurai

...
I am a network programmer and I know browsers operate at socket level, which is just above TCP layer. Browsers won't know how to negotiate anything other than an encryption cipher suite for SSL handshake.

All this happens so far away from the TCP socket, which is used by both RTSP (Youtube) and HTTP (any website). How does the mobile network know whether I am using RTSP or HTTP application when I open the TCP socket? People who write mobile applications know nothing about PDP Context negotiations. They just use web services or open TCP sockets to communicate.

I think in Android browsers might be able to understand whether it's RTSP or not. For instance, some googling around suggests that the HTML5 video tag is implemented in Chrome to also understand RTSP (and its error codes).

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by Isnescrpy

You are absolutely right. ISP should not care what you are using your Internet connection for. But the problem is that bandwidth is a finite resource. And when 50% of an ISPs traffic is Netlix, then the ISP will start to take notice. Its only a matter of time (4K streaming) before other services - email, cloud services and so on get affected.

Say if I have 4Mbps connection. If I run Netflix do you mean I can consume more than 4Mpbs and affect other users? I thought if I have 4 Mpbs I can consume upto 4Mpbs anything above will be throttled. So why should it matter to ISP if my fill all my 4Mpbs (100%) with Netflix traffic?

[Ross]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Because Airtel is picking the vendors for you. Eventually, you will start buying only from vendors blessed by Airtel, which may not get the best deal for you.

This is a pure speculation. Looks like Airtel Zero is a great platform for ecommerce and other consumer centric companies to pull in customers. As a consumer obviously I will have a choice whether to access the free site to browse and buy stuff or visit any other paid sites. It is like a toll free internet and consumer decides whether to make use of it or not.

I think this whole thing is blown out of proportion. Personally I spend lot of time on Flipkart and will be happy if my usage is free.

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by msdivy

Say if I have 4Mbps connection. If I run Netflix do you mean I can consume more than 4Mpbs and affect other users? I thought if I have 4 Mpbs I can consume upto 4Mpbs anything above will be throttled. So why should it matter to ISP if my fill all my 4Mpbs (100%) with Netflix traffic?

Bingo! They never planned for it, they never thought you along with another 100 people will move to downloads and that too at similar peak times. Dashboard shows its red and someone up there thought, why not make a business out of it Anyways its gonna choke my network, anyways i need more bandwidth now, so let me use my eye eye for em IIM (pun intended) to make some $$$$

Originally Posted by Ross

I think this whole thing is blown out of proportion. Personally I spend lot of time on Flipkart and will be happy if my usage is free.

Again think basic human psychology, Jaggu will spend so much time on flipkart and without checking amazon strike a bad deal coz his internet balance was low and flippy free to access :-/

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

Thanks. Just asking. Will it not ensure all vendors try and comply with airtel to reach me? Like how all app vendors complied with IOS to reach apple consumers..

There is only one Apple in the world. But there are 1000s of ISPs like Airtel around the world. Who all should vendors try to reach?

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

What background deal airtel is cracking with each website is not my business, why should I bother if smallecomercesite.com is getting low traffic or bandwidth?

If that is not rhetorical, let me ask.
Are you kidding me?
That is exactly what's wrong with this, in part, apart from what it may bring about in the future.
Do you think Fk backed out of some moral reasons?
This would kill any start up idea at inception. If this had happened when Fk was selling books, they'd have been screaming from the rooftops, rather than trying a sniggery deal. Theyd have been dead right now.

Edit: saw that it was rhetorical.
Sorry about that.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by nareshov

I think in Android browsers might be able to understand whether it's RTSP or not.

Browsers are not the only thing that connect to Internet, most apps connect directly.

Originally Posted by Ross

I think this whole thing is blown out of proportion. Personally I spend lot of time on Flipkart and will be happy if my usage is free.

So if ten other websites have cheaper prices, you will never know.

[Ross]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Browsers are not the only thing that connect to Internet, most apps connect directly.



So if ten other websites have cheaper prices, you will never know.

Again more speculation and assumption that people will never visit paid sites. If I am spending 1000 Rupees obviously I will compare prices in those ten sites and then make the decision and not buy blindly just because airtel is giving free access to my preferred site.

[srishiva]

You cant blame operators for thinking about it. They are not making meaningful profit for the investments they make.

Isn't whatsapp or something free on some operators? Not sure what great impact this has on net neutrality though.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by Samurai

LTE is for data, obviously it will be packet switched.

I think it is over-simplifying things when you say LTE is for data. Don't people have to talk anymore when LTE becomes the norm? It's probably that the delay and RTT characteristics which are aimed for in LTE would make it possible to have a voice call of the same quality as a circuit-switched call. So far however, this does not seem to have been achieved and hence operators continue to use their older generation networks for voice traffic.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Data is always packet switched

Not always in mobile networks. In CSD/HSCSD, data is transmitted in circuit-switched mode. Of course, these are old technologies, but they are still used by some operators.

Originally Posted by Samurai

How does the browser know to negotiate anything?

How does the mobile network know whether I am using RTSP or HTTP application when I open the TCP socket?

I am not a mobile application programmer, so I cannot anwer your question to your satisfaction. But, here is some text from 3GPP 23.107 which might asnwer your question:

In the case of Internet applications, the selection of the class and appropriate traffic attribute values is made according to the Internet QoS attributes. Internet applications do not directly use the services of UMTS but they use Internet QoS definitions and attributes, which are mapped to UMTS QoS attributes at API.

Here's a diagram I took from 3GPP specification 29.208:

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by Ross

Again more speculation and assumption that people will never visit paid sites.

Honestly moment "free" comes into picture humans would, that is reality. No assumption there. Do you think the apps like facebook reside in your mobile if the mobile version was 5.99$?

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by srishiva

You cant blame operators for thinking about it.

Yes, they have every right to squeeze every ounce from their customers and we have every right to push back their one-sided policies

They are not making meaningful profit for the investments they make.

Why do you say that? Hope you have seen the scramble for spectrum. There is huge money in telecom. Check out the analysis: Telecom Companies are NOT Losing Money To Data Services

Isn't whatsapp or something free on some operators? Not sure what great impact this has on net neutrality though.

Free WhatsApp is done now to attract new customers.

The current outrage is for proposal pending with TRAI, being intensely lobbyed by top telecom operators. Link to document: http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata...P-27032015.pdf

According to this proposal, telecom operators can control/regulate over-the-top (OTT) services like WhatsApp, Skype.

[Jeroen]

When having a debate about net neutrality it is probably useful to agree on a common definition of what that really means. Not everybody will agree, but at least a Professor Tim Wu defined it in 2003:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Let me give some additional perspective on this very relevant, but very complex topic.

When debating net neutrality there are numerous different angles to it. To name a few:

- Technically, i.e. the limitations and or possibilities technically speaking
- Legislation point of view
- Consumer point of view
- Service provider/ Application developer point of view
- Network operator point of view
- Political point of view

All of these are different and there are probably even a couple of more views I have left out.

In general, when we take the more or less consumer point of view it is obvious that we want to have an open, unrestricted and accessible internet experience for all users.

Now lets look at the basic technology, especially in mobile networks. Truth is that a user who happens to be closer to the radio base station will always get better throughput and higher speed then somebody who is further away from that base stations. That is just physics, there is nothing you can do about it. You can minimise it by having additional basestations, but even then users further away will have a different experience than those nearer to the basestation. That is just basic physics. No politician or legislator, or consumer representative can alter the laws of physics.

Here's another interesting comparison. Take for instance these so called smart electricity meters. They usually communicate once or twice a day with a burst of data. At the other end of the spectrum you might find a driverless car that needs to communicate every few milliseconds. Which one are you going to give priority or more bandwidth too? If every bit is to be considered equal, the bits about your electricity usage should be treated equally to the bits that prevent you from running a red light or crashing into somebody!

An average mobile broadband user will do some net-surfing, watch some (streaming) movies, play a few online games and do some mailing. All of these applications have very different characteristics in terms of how much data they exchange and how often. In order to give an appropriate consumer experience the (mobile) network will need to deal differently with these various applications. By the nature of its definition this is already a problem for net neutrality.

Just think this through, do we really want the bits representing the latest Bollywood movie to have the same priority as the bits that represent a call for an ambulance???? At it's purest form that's what net neutrality is all about. A mail, a movie, a call to an ambulance, a google search, checking Team BHP forum, an online game, all is considered equal! Does that make sense????

By the very nature of the different applications and what we as consumers expect as customer experience the network needs to deal with the associated data in a different way. That is just a (physical/technological) fact.

If all data is considered equal, some application will give really poor performance, some will do fine. Don't moan about not being able to put in a call to the police or the ambulance. A couple a guys were checking their teamBHP messages and that is equally important!!!!

This is a very complicated topic. I don't have the ultimate answer. But the notion that everything should be considered equal just doesn't make sense to me. On top of that we have the technological limitations and opportunities we need to accommodate as well.

So, one thing I'm pretty sure of, this thread has the potential to be the longest thread on the forum by a a good margin!

Enjoy!

Jeroen

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

This is a very complicated topic. I don't have the ultimate answer. But the notion that everything should be considered equal just doesn't make sense to me. On top of that we have the technological limitations and opportunities we need to accommodate as well.

Neither do it, but yes i would focus my energy on developing the technology to solve these issues, rather than trying to sideline a convenience or a public service utility.

Am pretty sure there is a way by which an essential service like ambulance can be given priority over, say a self driven car (that can afford to pay a premium to gain additional bandwidth) for accessing the same bandwidth.

Electricity meter for me is a public convenience utility which will reduce expense to government, increase convenience to all Vs Self driving car is satan in the eyes of a motor head

[msdivy]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

If every bit is to be considered equal, the bits about your electricity usage should be treated equally to the bits that prevent you from running a red light or crashing into somebody!

At it's purest form that's what net neutrality is all about. A mail, a movie, a call to an ambulance, a google search, checking Team BHP forum, an online game, all is considered equal! Does that make sense????

Don't moan about not being able to put in a call to the police or the ambulance. A couple a guys were checking their teamBHP messages and that is equally important!!!!

You are comparing time-critical function with non-time critical function. If somebody is building time-critical application, they would build enough redundancy for addressing worse cases.

To give an analogy, TBHP support might have one phone line that works between 9AM to 6PM. While a hospital support might have at least 3 lines that works 24 hours. But note that call to TBHP is treated with same priority as call to hospital on the phone link.