Quote:
Originally Posted by Pri2 The pricing maybe same for Airtel but not the consumer. For someone accessing the internet though airtel, access to Amazon is more expensive compared to Flipkart if it is a part of the free internet zone. |
Correct to some extent, so why do you think Amazon will not jump into deal with Airtel and also pay for customer's access to its site, similar to Flipkart???
In fact I believe that e-commerce sites SHOULD finance the traffic of people visiting their sites. They ultimately make money out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai No, it is not that simple. People keep comparing it to tollfree, which is not correct.
If it was as simple as tollfree number, here is how it would work. If I am an app maker registered with Airtel Zero, any customer on Airtel, Vodafone, Tata-telecom, BSNL, Idea, Aircel, office/home Wifi, etc., should get free data access. That is how tollfree phone works. |
I never intend to compare it to toll free.
All I am saying is this: in a deal between buyer and seller, there is transportation company involved. The transportation company has all the right to quote higher for certain goods (even though they occupy the same truck area).
[As a side note, therefore I am opposed to the concept of net neutrality altogether, something quite similar to what Jeroen has posted - but he has socialist reasons - definitely European influence and I have capitalist reasons - definitely anarchist laissez faire influence].
Who pays for the transport? Perhaps the seller had made an agreement with the transport company and "pays" for it. Making it look like free for the buyer.
Maybe seller says to buyer - make your own arrangements.
Quote:
Also unlike tollfree numbers, apps are used worldwide. When an tiny app maker publishes an app in a Rhode Island server, he knows people from all over the world have equal chance of getting to his app. But a plan like Airtel Zero suddenly incentivizes their customers to stay away from any app that doesn't register with Airtel. There are 1000s of ISPs around the world, if each one starts incentivizes their customers to stay away from apps that don't register with them, small app makers will die a quick death. This is not good for the customers at all, such monopolistic practice should be regulated.
|
Agreed that in this scenario, the small app maker will face the odd staring against it. But let the customer's decide that!
In android stores - initially at least for quite some years - whatsapp was charged. Still people used it. In spite of a gamut of alternative apps that were for free! What about apple store? People didn't make a move from Apple to Android simply because android stores offered free apps where the same were offered for monies in apple.
Why do you want a govt regulation to spell out what prices should be charged to the customer?
In fact this govt regulation would be termed as a monopolistic practice, since it stops the free market price movements.
Quote:
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. |
AH!
Now you are coming to the real point.
The issue is that all vendors are forced to go to ISP-A, becuase ISP-A holds the sole license to operate internet service. This is the crux. If there were no licensing policy here, vendor-A ties up with ISP-A for lower price to buyer.
Vendor-B ties up with ISP-B for lower price to buyer.
The buyer now has a choice.
Instead of asking Airtel to procide a level playing field, why don't we ask the govt to provide a level playing field so that we have more telecom vendors?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacksport I was kind of neutral in this net neutrality debate, but am increasingly moving to the less popular side.
My ISP gives three websites absolutely free.
1) Their own company website - (who needs that?)
2) www.yahoo.co.in - (do people still access yahoo?)
3) www.wikipedia.org - (there you have me...)
No 2 is a website I have no use of even if they give it for free. And no 3 is one which I would pay through the roof if made paid. So irrespective of whether something is given away free, people will take it only if it gives value. |
You have hit the nail on the head.
Perhaps you will find it amusing, all this while I was with Net neutrality camp, without making a conscious efforts to understand the other side. Heck, till day before I was "against" the Airtel Zero platform.
But after reading around about the concept and thinking, instead of just takes sides - I have just realized how wrong I had been.
Quote:
The losers in this game seems to be the websites with not-so-deep-pockets. Now when did we start giving a damn for them - the ones with not-so-deep-pockets? Did we any time say that big companies should not advertise because it is unfair to those who can't afford to pay for ads? Or that newspapers should treat all advertisers equally and hence have all ads in the same size? Are we advocating socialism, BTW? Th every thing we decided to throw away a couple of decades ago?
Now lets get to the bit level. The proponents of net neutrality says that the ISPs should treat all bits equally, be it a bit representing voice, image, text etc. But do we treat a piece of metal in a Honda City equal to a piece of metal in a Merc? We pay for the "value" we receive, not what the underlying building block is. We don't pay for the atoms, we pay for the product. So we pay for the value we get from teh servoce, not the underlying bit. If we derive more value from voice than data, then the ISPs are right in charging a more for it. Whether there is more value in the product is for the market to decide.
|
You know I think the problem in today's world is that all of us are reaping money made from capitalist endeavors (yes even the laborers), but we love to think that we are communists and support the fairy tale world of
fairness.