[vc.vinay]

Net Neutrality: Airtel's Srini Gopalan clears the air on myths about Airtel Zero and Net Neutrality

As Airtel finds itself at the centre of net neutrality debate, Srini Gopalan, Director – Consumer Business, Bharti Airtel talks about how Airtel Zero makes internet more accessible and drives innovation, in a statement below:

It’s only been a couple of days since the launch of Airtel Zero, an innovative and open marketing platform that will allow customers to access mobile applications “free of cost”, and we are seeing a big and somewhat unrelated debate on net neutrality with regards to the product.

While opinions from critics of the product are very welcome, it is pertinent that we set the record straight and look at some key facts relating to Airtel Zero and the benefits it brings to customers and the industry alike.

First and most important point: Airtel Zero is “free” for all our consumers and open to all marketers. Yes, open to all – big or small.

In fact, since we announced Airtel Zero on April 6, over 150 start-ups – with majority being small start-ups – have contacted to enquire about the product. For the record, every one of them told us what a great platform we will be providing to them and for a change they will have an “equal opportunity” to run with the big boys. On an average, Airtel Zero will help reduce their marketing costs by almost three quarters. Not bad, I would say, though some may still feel otherwise.

There is also a high level of misinformation surrounding the product, which is not surprising since the very concept of Net Neutrality is a bit misunderstood. Let us also bust some of the myths regarding Airtel Zero.

Myth Reality
The product concept amounts to preferential access Not at all. Airtel Zero provides universal access and is free for all our customers. Customers have the choice to decide whether they want to come there or not.
Large companies with big budgets will be favoured and smaller start-ups will lose out NO. On the contrary we have had lots of ‘small’ start-ups calling us and congratulating us for building this platform, which offers them a great opportunity to market their products at very low costs. Over 150 companies are already in touch with us and want to sign up.
‘Smaller’ Start-ups will not be able to afford to pay for the data charges Why not? Today, when a consumer downloads a new app and uses it for a day, the total amount of data consumed is roughly about 20-30 MB. Assuming a price of INR 1/MB of free data, this will translate to INR 20 for the start-up. Compared to this, the average cost of marketing digitally through large media/ internet companies is about INR 50 to 300 per download. So, this platform will actually make it cheaper for small companies to gain distribution as well as visibility.
Telecom companies will charge other companies for data used by customers. This is a way of making money. Telecom companies have been working with businesses for decades to offer ‘Toll-Free’ voice services, wherein, a business pays to a customer to call in. Airtel Zero is the same concept.
Airtel Zero is against Net Neutrality and gives advantage to those who can pay for data. As a concept Airtel Zero has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. It is free for each and every customer and offers the same speed to all. It charges the same amount to each company for data without any discrimination.
Speed to access the apps that are not on Airtel Zero will be throttled Completely incorrect. There is no difference in speed to access various apps, whether they are on Airtel Zero or not.

Today, some mobile devices can store 50 or more apps, others can store five and some can't even do so. Will Net Neutrality imply that all devices must be standardised and offered at the same price to make the net neutral?

There are multiple mobile technologies – 2G, 3G, 4G - to access internet. Should all speed and pricing be the same in the garb of Net Neutrality?

Some customers pay cheaper data rates based on volume purchased. Does Net Neutrality imply that everyone must pay the same rate irrespective of usage?

In the end, the debate over the past few days has brought out one thing clearly – a large number of people are still not clear on what Net Neutrality is all about. This gives an opportunity to the so called experts to make various as well as baseless arguments. While their point of view is important, we should have a more informed and nuanced debate without painting a picture that is based on rhetoric rather than reason.

Given the facts above, what better way to contribute to the Digital India vision of the Government of India. Never before has an open and innovative platform like Airtel Zero been on offer that will help drive internet adoption through free usage (and companies and app developers being an equal partner in the process). It will also drive innovation in the internet and mobile app space by providing a cost-effective and non-discriminatory platform, in particular, to smaller companies. This will truly drive ‘Make in India, For India’.

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by srishiva

Netflix had the same arrangement in Australia and had unlimited bandwidth for its service provided to it by ISPs. Quotes below as mentioned in cnet.

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings that "Net neutrality must be defended" and ISPs must not "restrict, influence, or otherwise meddle with the choices consumers make."

The US Federal Communications Commission voted in March to reclassify Internet service as a Title II service under the country's Communications Act. In short, the decision means that ISPs in the US will be prohibited from blocking or slowing down traffic on their networks, or from offering paid services to content providers to ensure priority access -- similar to the deal Netflix struck in Australia.

So, we should see the same categorization as FCC has done in U.S.

@msdivy, Application layer cannot take care of the priority services without using such services offered by the lower layers. Wireless has a lot of complications (fade, noise, interference etc) and without it knowing what is being transported over it, applications will not work.

That makes sense if the Indian government didn't meddle into the telecom affairs earlier. The government made ISP and telecom operators cough up astronomical fees, with the idiotic CAG calculating unearthly revenue figures and projections. Now with the telecom amendment of 2012, the government wants the same operators to stop charging for ISD/STD, roaming and even allow voice over internet calling, leading to massive revenue shortfalls.
If the government policies keep changing every 2-3 years India will never be a good place to do business, forget competing with other countries.

[RSR]

I'm saddened to see comments arguing that Airtel Zero (and other such zero-rating schemes) by the scheming telcos & ISPs are not violating net neutrality. I don't mind people declaring that they are against net neutrality and in favour of such zero-rating schemes, but proclaiming zero-rating schemes are not violating net neutrality is way, way off the mark and reflects the exact position of the scheming telcos & ISPs on this issue.

Worldwide (at least in non-totalitarian countries), independent regulatory agencies have recognised that zero-rating schemes are indeed a violation of net neutrality and are striving to put an end to such practices.

In fact, such zero-rating plans, by their very scheming, covert and underhand nature (and the fake idea of providing something "free" for the uninformed & unconnected masses, much like those election freebies) may prove to be the BIGGEST threat to net neutrality instead of other overt threats.

The well-known and overt threats to net neutrality are practices such as blocking, throttling and providing "fast lanes" in favour of some websites, apps, platforms etc. and against others.

Zero-rating schemes may prove to be a much bigger and more dangerous threat to net neutrality than the above mentioned practices:

Zero-rating has now become the neuralgic point in the net neutrality debate on both sides of the Atlantic

In Europe, ten small member states put forward a net neutrality proposal that, if adopted, would ban harmful price discrimination practices such as zero-rating. The proposal is fiercely opposed by big EU member states and their dominant telecom groups. The Netherlands and Slovenia, two countries that have already enshrined real net neutrality in their national laws, issued enforcement orders for zero-rating violations. In January, the Dutch Consumer and Markets Authority, ACM, fined Vodafone for zero-rating HBO Go mobile video streaming while the Slovenian regulator ordered Telekom Slovenia and Telekom Austria to stop zero-rating music streaming and cloud storage applications. Chile’s 2014 net neutrality legislation also bans price discrimination practices such as zero-rating. In 2014, the Norwegian, German and Austrian telecom regulators publicly asserted that zero-rating infringes net neutrality.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the Canadian telecom and media regulator (CRTC) has banned zero-rated mobile video streaming services while in the US the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has released its much anticipated draft net neutrality rules.

...

Zero-rating is particularly harmful in mobile internet access markets where ISPs collectively set low volume caps. In most fixed internet access markets where gigabyte volumes are unlimited and as well in few mobile internet access markets where gigabyte volumes are very accommodative (e.g. Finland) zero-rating poses a benign threat. However, this could soon change. In 2013, Deutsche Telekom announced a plan that will cap the volume of fixed internet access connections but it will exempt its own IPTV (zero-rated) video service. The reaction from German authorities was swift. A German court blocked Deutsche Telekom’s plan on the basis of consumer protection law while the German telecom regulator Bundesnetzagentur carried out an investigation and warned Deutsche Telekom that zero-rating could infringe net neutrality.

http://webfoundation.org/2015/02/gue...rated-content/

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by srishiva

If we talk about streaming (live streaming is higher,buffered is lower etc) it will have higher QoS ( we are talking about streaming applications) not the one that you might do with a browser. When we talk about QoS etc, it has nothing to do with TCP or not. Its the type of traffic only.

Originally Posted by StarrySky

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?

Gentlemen, I don't see the point of all this. Internet applications don't operate below sockets. That is because a single socket session can span many carrier technologies. You keep talking about QoS of mobile carrier, that only addresses the first leg of the traffic, from my mobile to the ISPs Mobile Switching Center. After that it travels on fiber undersea cables or underground cables, changing hands between many carriers to ultimately reach a website situated in some data center. So, only the first leg of the web traffic is within the control of the ISP, after that it is not in their control. That is why I find this talk of dedicated channels irrelevant. The two endpoints (mobile & website) exchange packets over a TCP socket, below that it can span many carriers, in which only the first tiny leg goes over mobile carrier.

Originally Posted by Ross

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.

Airtel Zero sites can be accessed without having any data pack. Eventually many will stop buying data packs and just visit the free sites. Then you can't visit the non-free sites since you didn't buy any packs.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

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!!!!

Aren't you confusing between data and voice? In the telecom world, data refers to non-voice traffic. The voice traffic has a higher priority (QoS) than data. Your voice call to anybody won't be affected by data traffic. But if you are using VOIP call which is on data traffic, it can be affected.

Originally Posted by apachelongbow

That is interesting, reason being right now vendors are not targeting any specific audience. The reason being the www is big wide and free.

It is not free, everybody does pay to get access to Internet, whether it is business or consumers.

Originally Posted by alpha1

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.

There are couple dozens of ISPs in India. Do you mean every business should make deals with every ISP in India?

Originally Posted by alpha1

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).

This is the trouble with simple analogies. If I consider your analogy, as a seller I can have the choice many transportation companies. I could pick between UPS, FedEx, FirstFlight, DTDC, Professional Courier, DHL, etc., because every one of them will be able to deliver the package to you. However, Internet is a situation where the buyer can be reached only via one transport company, which could be Airtel. Now Airtel says shipping is free if you buy from Flipkart. Can Amazon reach the same customer using BSNL?

Originally Posted by alpha1

Who pays for the transport?

Everybody pays to get access to Internet. Now Airtel is saying it will make the access free whenever you visit their partners. Can BSNL/Vodafone offer the same to you? No, you can be connected to only one ISP. That is the crux of the matter. If your access to the Internet is through just one vendor, and if they decides to play the gatekeeper, they can completely change your Internet experience.

I am not speculating. In 1994, I got my first home internet from AOL. When you login to AOL, it would bring up AOL browser, which had links all kinds of services. None of that was world wide web. But for almost all AOL members, that was Internet. They only used the buttons provided by AOL to all their net surfing. But I also used Mosaic at work, so I knew there was a world wide web outside of AOL. So I downloaded Mosiac at great difficulty and was able connect to non-AOL sites from home. But most people will go with what comes default/free with the service.

The slang AOLer was coined because of this sheltered existence of AOL users. If ISPs get away with this, future gen will be AOLers.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=AOLer

Originally Posted by alpha1

Agreed that in this scenario, the small app maker will face the odd staring against it. But let the customer's decide that!

How can the customer decide impartially when his behavior is highly influenced by the ISP?

Originally Posted by alpha1

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.

What choice? The buyer can't switch ISPs everyday to checkout different vendors.

Originally Posted by alpha1

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?

How does that help? The consumer is always tied to a single ISP, if 90% of the websites are on other ISPs favoured list, he is not getting any benefit.

[Jaggu]

Originally Posted by vc.vinay

‘Smaller’ Start-ups will not be able to afford to pay for the data charges Why not? Today, when a consumer downloads a new app and uses it for a day, the total amount of data consumed is roughly about 20-30 MB. Assuming a price of INR 1/MB of free data, this will translate to INR 20 for the start-up. Compared to this, the average cost of marketing digitally through large media/ internet companies is about INR 50 to 300 per download. So, this platform will actually make it cheaper for small companies to gain distribution as well as visibility.

I did not quite get the underlined part of the above marketing talk. I thought once you pay as a developer there are no further charges to host an app?? Unless its paid app or in app sales happen, where a % will be the store charge.

How does it translate as charge to start up and more importantly how will it change in airtel zero? Or do they mean to say all apps will be from airtel site? Then how will it work on iOS devices which allow only apple signed apps?

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by blacksport

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.

This is from your point of view - meaning the point of view of a person who has been paying for data so far and knows what sites/apps are out there.

One of the biggest arguments that AirTel and the like are putting forward is that these zero-rating schemes puts free internet in the hands of millions more who are not connected now (maybe due to costs). In other words, those millions who only get free internet will become potential customers of sites on the AirTel Zero platform only.

It is also easy to make statements such as "would pay through the roof if made paid". It may be correct in your own case, but it need not be so for the majority. If there is a site (maybe run/supported by the operator) which provides somewhat similar utility for free, most people would switch eventually.

Originally Posted by blacksport

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?

Question is once those companies with not-so-deep-pockets are dead or ones without deep pockets can't even start competing, would the ones with deep pockets be as willing to pay your subscription fees as they are now? Will they be willing to sell you the products at the same price as they are now? Will AirTel be willing to give them a low cost platform once the majority of AirTel customers are on the AirTel Zero platform?

Originally Posted by Samurai

Gentlemen, I don't see the point of all this. Internet applications don't operate below sockets. That is because a single socket session can span many carrier technologies. You keep talking about QoS of mobile carrier, that only addresses the first leg of the traffic, from my mobile to the ISPs Mobile Switching Center. After that it travels on fiber undersea cables or underground cables, changing hands between many carriers to ultimately reach a website situated in some data center. So, only the first leg of the web traffic is within the control of the ISP, after that it is not in their control. That is why I find this talk of dedicated channels irrelevant. The two endpoints (mobile & website) exchange packets over a TCP socket, below that it can span many carriers, in which only the first tiny leg goes over mobile carrier.

As they say, a chain is only as strong as the weakest link. Even if the external world outside your mobile network is able to give you gigabits of data, the QoS allocated by your mobile network is what you will actually see. And there is no alternate path for you to reach the external world, unless you switch your service provider. I think this is where it becomes relevant. But I agree our discussion is far off topic and irrelevant for this thread. Let's continue on PM if required.

[ashua]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

I did not quite get the underlined part of the above marketing talk. I thought once you pay as a developer there are no further charges to host an app?? Unless its paid app or in app sales happen, where a % will be the store charge.

How does it translate as charge to start up and more importantly how will it change in airtel zero? Or do they mean to say all apps will be from airtel site? Then how will it work on iOS devices which allow only apple signed apps?

If the developer was lets say flipkart, Airtel will charge the Rs. 20 worth of bandwidth you spent browsing flipkart to flipkart. So you will have Rs. 20 more to spend browsing some other site. Concept wise thought it would not seem very bad (an infact a boon) the real problem starts when Airtel starts to control/regulate your access (by making their site slower to access or limiting access to x bytes per day) to other competitors of flipkart. In an ideal world they will behave like a good Samaritan and refrain from doing that.
In a less than ideal world (like ours) flipkart & Airtel will shadily decide to do the same.

[::CMS::]

Originally Posted by vc.vinay

The product concept amounts to preferential access Not at all. Airtel Zero provides universal access and is free for all our customers.

This is one of the best Jokes in 2015. What that "" is thinking, all others are fools?
If they are so keen to provide free access to its customers, why did they choose only a few, WHY CANT BE FOR ALL WEBSITES? Make all websites free. What will be the difference b/n the normal sites and the "Zero" sites, if nothing what are they trying to bring in? Its nothing but a trap, they will start this with a free access with a fine print to change the scheme and later they will start charging.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

This is from your point of view - meaning the point of view of a person who has been paying for data so far and knows what sites/apps are out there.

One of the biggest arguments that AirTel and the like are putting forward is that these zero-rating schemes puts free internet in the hands of millions more who are not connected now (maybe due to costs). In other words, those millions who only get free internet will become potential customers of sites on the AirTel Zero platform only.

It is also easy to make statements such as "would pay through the roof if made paid". It may be correct in your own case, but it need not be so for the majority. If there is a site (maybe run/supported by the operator) which provides somewhat similar utility for free, most people would switch eventually.

We are all scared about the future. Isn't this whole net neutrality propaganda thriving on fear? Fear of the unknown? I think it is a fallacy to assume that the "free internet" would become extinct just because a few choose to offer a zero-cost plan. If there is a market for "free internet", an ISP would definitely provide that.

So can't the "zero cost internet" and the "free internet" co-exist? By taking away a "zero cost internet", aren't you taking away the right for a person to choose what he wants? If I choose to live in a not-so-free world, shouldn't that be my prerogative?

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

This is from your point of view - meaning the point of view of a person who has been paying for data so far and knows what sites/apps are out there.

One of the biggest arguments that AirTel and the like are putting forward is that these zero-rating schemes puts free internet in the hands of millions more who are not connected now (maybe due to costs). In other words, those millions who only get free internet will become potential customers of sites on the AirTel Zero platform only.
.

Thanks for explaining this so well
Do we really need a walled garden.
Imagine internet.org spreads through India with free internet access.
Whats on this internet? Facebook, wikipedia and a bunch of other websites who can pay. So you have an entire demographic who know only these 80 sites. For them this is the internet.

This is an extremely slippery support. Suppose a lobbying group site buys into this by paying. Now we have an entire demographic having access to only one propaganda.

Another weird thing is that people have extremely short memories. Cable TV networks(local cable wallah) do not have any net-neutrality regulation covering them. So in political strongholds, channels critical of the regional mafia will not be served.

I have seen this happen personally in Punjab, where some local channels were blacked out during elections, because they were critical of a particular govt.

Do people want this kind of internet, where your ISP decides which sites or propaganda is beneficial to them?

Is this the real internet.


For those thinking "FREE is GOOD", remember... Drug dealers also give the first fix for free.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by Samurai

1. How can the customer decide impartially when his behavior is highly influenced by the ISP?

2. What choice? The buyer can't switch ISPs everyday to checkout different vendors.

3. How does that help? The consumer is always tied to a single ISP, if 90% of the websites are on other ISPs favoured list, he is not getting any benefit.

1. He cannot. But now you are bringing the concept of fairness, partiality, impartiality into the equation. However, there is still hope. Not everyone will be on Airtel. Are you? Are all your friends and business associates? We learn from others that something else is better for us - we make a switch.

2. You can't switch everyday simply because protectionism is being followed in the name of licensing and you would run out of options soon. If we try to see the potential vendors, I have the following ways to access internet:

• wired: reliance, you, spectranet, bsnl, one more vendor I don't recall the name (there used to be sify and tata also but they pulled off after customer stopped patronizing them)
• wireless & mobile: tata, idea, airtel, reliance, vodafone, bsnl, mts (there could've been more but darned licensing philosophy reduced it)

To be honest, daily switchover hasn't been the case, but I have made switches based on quality of service after hearing from someone else and seeing that A offers better than B. Why can't a person make similar switches based on vendor tie-ups being offered?
The fact is that there is a heterogeneity. One ISP does not hold monopoly.

3. You are assuming that other ISPs are idiots and will be wiling to lose traffic and subscriber base to AIrtel. Why will they not tie up with Flipkart. Or better - Why will hey not tie up with competitors to flipkart?
Imagine if this is the case with limited licensed vendors, what would happen in a true free market?
Also no one is blocking or banning the content of non-tied-up vendor. (which is a valid fear, but even this scenario can be broken, see below)

You seem to be hung up on the point that subscribers of Airtel will become duds and be fed with free content of flipkart and they will never know the world out there. Perhaps possible.

But the intelligent will always try to seek better things. They may chance upon the fact that Idea has tied up with Amazon. And rates at amazon are cheaper. The news leaks out. Even idiot people try paid connection on their Airtel and see that yes it is indeed true. Some prefer paying to airtel because it still works out the be cheaper, some make switch to Idea. Even if Airtel had banned the amazon content, the idiot will surely have people around who use Idea. He can easily see what is the truth. And perhaps make a switch.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by vc.vinay

Net Neutrality: Airtel's Srini Gopalan clears the air on myths about Airtel Zero and Net Neutrality

First and most important point: Airtel Zero is “free” for all our consumers and open to all marketers. Yes, open to all – big or small.

Given the facts above, what better way to contribute to the Digital India vision of the Government of India. Never before has an open and innovative platform like Airtel Zero been on offer that will help drive internet adoption through free usage (and companies and app developers being an equal partner in the process). It will also drive innovation in the internet and mobile app space by providing a cost-effective and non-discriminatory platform, in particular, to smaller companies. This will truly drive ‘Make in India, For India’.

One thing that I've learnt is that when people try and invoke patriotism, especially for commercial reasons, its usually humbug. This chap is leading us on a fairy tale. In no way is Airtel Zero a boost to the Make in India campaign.

I simply cannot understand why Airtel cannot just come clean and say its trying to monetize its infrastructure as much as possible, while keeping in mind that there is no cost added to the end consumer. Why do they go around trying to confuse the issue? These kind of marketing spiels really get my goat, simply because it means that they assume we're dumb.

[hellmet]

For a moment forget Flipkart. Let's assume they tie up with NDTV. Now all your news will come to you from one source - anyone that wants to manipulate the masses now has a tool that reaches everyone for free. So, manipulate NDTV news sources and mission achieved.

Next, let's say Airtel ties up with Sakshi (Jagan owned news). Now, all your news will be Jagan favoring news. Will you ever be able to find out about anything/anyone else?

That is what is scary. It always starts small.

[ampere]

The question is:

Should one evaluate the (end product + transport) together for quality of service to the consumer or both of them independently to add to permutations/combinations and hence decide on choice of both separately.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by alpha1

You seem to be hung up on the point that subscribers of Airtel will become duds and be fed with free content of flipkart and they will never know the world out there. Perhaps possible.

I don't have to speculate. After 22 years on Internet, I have seen all kinds of deals and their effect.

Being in a city you think there is lots of choice for everybody. Not so. At my rural office I am stuck with Tata because only they offer 1:1 fiber connection to my office. I have no choice of switching. At my home, only Airtel offers reliable broadband. BSNL is very notorious in this area.