[roy_libran]

Originally Posted by blacksport

To answer one of yours above, if LG agrees to pay the bill for running a LG washing machine, I would happily take it.

Ok -
If LG agrees to pay the bill, for running a LG washing machine, most customers would happily sign up for it.
But, what if, your Electric DisCom, prevents you from using a Samsung washing machine, irrespective of whether or not, Samsung is paying the bill, then what would you do?
Or, if the Electric DisCom, wants to charge you a punitive tariff in case you choose to use a Samsung or any other brand machine.

Would that be fair, in your opinion?

[blackwasp]

A more concerning aspect about this is the privacy, or rather lack of it. Let us assume that this plan is implemented. Does it mean that my telecom provider will track the sites I visit ? Then he will sell this data to the site that I visit frequently for targeted advertisement. Eg, if majority of my internet time is spent on Facebook, the telecom companies could potentially sell my internet history !! They will keep my history for a month claiming that it is needed for billing purposes.

Also, what about a small website owner like me ? Upon google search, my site is displayed on the first page when a relevant query is sent. But since I don't have the money to pay to telecom companies, they will restrict the speed to my site. What will my website's users do in that case?

Also, can you imagine t-bhp site restricted to 64kbps because it won't pay the telecom companies ? This regulation if implemented will only cause more troubles. This will allow all others to use such practices.

Examples :
1.seperate lane for certain car manufacturers, over and above the normal toll
2.entry to a mall only if you wear xyz branded clothes
3.tata sky will work only on samsung TV, and airtelTV will work on sony
4.for VW Beetle owners, faster fuel dispenser (refer the Love Bug)

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Also a question for you and other who are so much for net neutrality. Since we always talk about pipes and toll roads while comparing internet - what are your views about variable toll prices? What that means is that the toll company can charge dynamic prices based on the amount of traffic on its road.

I am sure most people here would simply be shocked

Why would people be shocked? There is already differential pricing for airline tickets, Tatkal tickets, movie tickets, "happy hours" in restuarants etc. In lean periods, everyone pays less. In busy periods, everyone pays more.

Originally Posted by alpha1

You are robbing me by forcing me to pay the per MB rate just because you felt it is fair and everyone wants a neutral internet.

I could say you are robbing me (and yourself) of competitive prices in future because you want to enjoy "supposedly free" internet.

Originally Posted by alpha1

1. The assumption is wrong. Airtel Zero is not saying that vendor registered with us cannot do business with anyone else. In fact even if it does say this, I have no problems. I am sure you will have no problems if Airtel open a rival to Flipkart. And makes the access to it FREE. Would you?

Where did I say WhatsApp cannot register with others? What I said is that when WhatsApp has to register with everyone, their costs go up and they will start charging you and me.

Originally Posted by alpha1

2. Do you think your newspaper really costs what you pay for? No the advertisers pay for you. Because they want to grab your eyeballs that can lead to a potential sale. You buy newspaper at lower than manufacturing costs, knowing fully well that the seller will recover the cost of advertising from you if you decide to buy. What is wrong in this practice?

Would these advertiser's products have cost so much if they didn't have to pay every newspaper for ads? Your argument just reiterates what I said about future pricing of WhatsApp, Flipkart etc once these Zero cost platforms become the norm.

Also, even if company X advertises on my newspaper, I have the choice to buy another product who may not advertise in the same newspaper without paying my newspaper any extra money.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by blacksport

This is exactly the same kind of fear mongering we hear every time a new reform arrives. We heard that FDI was introduced in retail. Walmart did not kill all the competition in USA, right?

Lets get this analogy right. There is a toll road which charges Rs 100 one way, but if there is "free lane" that will take me to a particular shop that I can shop at, why shouldn't I take that lane?

No fear mongering about Walmart, they shut shop because the competition didn't allow them to operate the US model of shutting down competition by undercutting and then raising prices to compensate when they are the only game in town. Walmart is 20 times bigger than the nearest competitor, there is research that shows those everyday low prices don't apply in areas where Walmart is a monopoly. The destruction of the manufacturing sector has been unparalleled, Germany has lower prices and still maintains factories, because they realised that the US model would be a disaster.

Your post mentioned shopping shelf space which any business is free to use as it pleases, the toll road analogy doesn't apply if your car is blocked from going to the other store. To put it another way, on a long weekend, you'll be asked to wait indefinitely at a toll booth because you chose a cheaper hotel and your neighbour is waved through because he is staying at the poshest place which has paid the toll operator to let your neighbour go first. This means that people have to shift to the more expensive place, which shuts down cheaper competition and finally you go faster only to pay more and put up with whatever you are offered because the competition couldn't control access.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

1. I could say you are robbing me (and yourself) of competitive prices in future because you want to enjoy "supposedly free" internet.
2. Where did I say WhatsApp cannot register with others? What I said is that when WhatsApp has to register with everyone, their costs go up and they will start charging you and me.
3. Would these advertiser's products have cost so much if they didn't have to pay every newspaper for ads? Your argument just reiterates what I said about future pricing of WhatsApp, Flipkart etc once these Zero cost platforms become the norm.
4. Also, even if company X advertises on my newspaper, I have the choice to buy another product who may not advertise in the same newspaper without paying my newspaper any extra money.

1. Exactly. And therefore nothing is absolutely fair. The whole story around fairness is based on biased way of looking at things inculcated right from childhood. Continuing from the toll road example - letting dynamic market pricing will always optimize the load on the road. Perhaps the toll road constructor knowing that in dynamic pricing scenario, less people would be now inclined to travel at peak hours - may make only 3 lane road - thus reducing the overall cost.
2. So what is the issue if Whatsapp again starts charging back? If you do not like the service and do not like paying, you make a switch.
3. But why do you wish to clamp down on prices being paid by the seller? Because you are afraid that more people wil visit his site instead of others? The other sellers are in competitive market, they are not going to sit back and take it lightly.
Because you are afraid that small startups won't be able to compete? Hmm, so you think a promising idea will not allow a flurry of investors. And that capital inflow will not allow them to tie up with Airtel or some other vendor? Or that Airtel smelling a good opportunity will not be interested in doing business with this small fry?
4. Agreed you have a choice to ignore the advertisement. And you feel that it is slightly more of an effort to ignore the free access to flipkart. But hey, no is still compelling you to access flipkart and buy.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

No fear mongering about Walmart, they shut shop because the competition didn't allow them to operate the US model of shutting down competition by undercutting and then raising prices to compensate when they are the only game in town. Walmart is 20 times bigger than the nearest competitor, there is research that shows those everyday low prices don't apply in areas where Walmart is a monopoly. The destruction of the manufacturing sector has been unparalleled, Germany has lower prices and still maintains factories, because they realised that the US model would be a disaster.

You make it seem as if in the USofA there are no other stores to go to except Walmart.
So how is it in a monopoly?

1. To put it another way, on a long weekend, you'll be asked to wait indefinitely at a toll booth because you chose a cheaper hotel and your neighbour is waved through because he is staying at the poshest place which has paid the toll operator to let your neighbour go first.
2. This means that people have to shift to the more expensive place, which shuts down cheaper competition and finally you go faster only to pay more and put up with whatever you are offered because the competition couldn't control access.

1. Only for the first time, next time you will chose the one that has tie up.
2. You are assuming that the entire human race is devoid of business men who cannot smell an opportunity and will not put up a similar class hotel with similar tie-ups with the toll vendor! What will a higher supply of similar things do? Drive down the price.

I see it better for humanity if 5 star facility become affordable, and people abandon staying in roadside pipes.
The roadside pipes will always remain cheaper than 5 star facility though.


I am frankly at a loss to keep explaining the same concepts about market, competition and entrepreneurship in every post.
The world today is because of these reason, not because of Govt regulations about ensuring neutrality in everything.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

1. Because internet is like infrastructure. Like highways. Would you accept a system where you pay more toll if you go to McDonalds located in the same building as a Sagar Ratna?

2. Some gentleman has been harping about how competition and free market will take care of everything.
Well it did not in the US.

3. As for competition, densely populated areas of India often have only airtel and BSNL. I live in one such area with a duopoly.

1. What is the issue with such system? You find it hard to digest because you have a notion about something called fair and not fair.
2. US ... free market? Only for a limited number of things. Most of US is tightly controlled by Govt just like in India.
3. Funny right? Densely populated area (ergo huge market), and only two providers? How can such a scenario ever occur?

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by blacksport

To answer one of yours above, if LG agrees to pay the bill for running a LG washing machine, I would happily take it..

And that will not be against net-neutrality. If Flipkart says. Shop for 1000rs and get refund of your internet bill, that is NOT a violation of net neutrality.
Unregulated market need not be a free market, StarrySky has explained it very well.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

So, if my mobile operator chooses what sites I can or can't access, how is it not a regulated market, but a free market?

A regulated market is regulated by govt. A private player deciding how and what he sells is free market. You may want to read up.

Originally Posted by roy_libran

Ok -
If LG agrees to pay the bill, for running a LG washing machine, most customers would happily sign up for it.
But, what if, your Electric DisCom, prevents you from using a Samsung washing machine, irrespective of whether or not, Samsung is paying the bill, then what would you do?
Or, if the Electric DisCom, wants to charge you a punitive tariff in case you choose to use a Samsung or any other brand machine.

Would that be fair, in your opinion?

Are we talking about fairness? NO. I am talking about freedom. The world isn't fair. Anywhere. I think we haven't woken up from socialism.

Originally Posted by avira_tk

No fear mongering about Walmart, they shut shop because the competition didn't allow them to operate the US model of shutting down competition by undercutting and then raising prices to compensate when they are the only game in town. Walmart is 20 times bigger than the nearest competitor, there is research that shows those everyday low prices don't apply in areas where Walmart is a monopoly. The destruction of the manufacturing sector has been unparalleled, Germany has lower prices and still maintains factories, because they realised that the US model would be a disaster.

Your post mentioned shopping shelf space which any business is free to use as it pleases, the toll road analogy doesn't apply if your car is blocked from going to the other store. To put it another way, on a long weekend, you'll be asked to wait indefinitely at a toll booth because you chose a cheaper hotel and your neighbour is waved through because he is staying at the poshest place which has paid the toll operator to let your neighbour go first. This means that people have to shift to the more expensive place, which shuts down cheaper competition and finally you go faster only to pay more and put up with whatever you are offered because the competition couldn't control access.

More analogies! If somebody pays more than me to access a comfort which I couldn't why should I fret over it? If a ISP sells me a restricted internet which comes for a lesser cost, why should you worry about it? Those who don't want a restricted internet could go for the full thali. Why do you want to take my freedom to choose away from me?

BTW, lets do this thought experiment:

Out of the 1 billion in India, if 100 million supports net neutrality while the rest of the 900 million would do with a restricted internet, why do you want to take that choice away from the 900 million people?

On the contrary, if 900 million supports net neutrality, then why this hullabaloo? Restricted internet is already dead. Why do you need a legislation for that?

Again, if 900 million supports a restricted internet, and you think that they do it because they are ignorant, why do you think that you can think better than them?

Free markets, anyone?

[ashua]

Originally Posted by alpha1

You are assuming that it will happen this way.
Just like Karl Marx assumed that private enterprises left on their own will exploit the workers.

In a free market, what is better is defined by how successful it is in being sold. Whether it is a Merc because of tieup with toll vendors or Alto.

Also a question for you and other who are so much for net neutrality. Since we always talk about pipes and toll roads while comparing internet - what are your views about variable toll prices? What that means is that the toll company can charge dynamic prices based on the amount of traffic on its road.

Sorry, even if I see it from point of fairness - I find it unfair that a person traveling at lean period is forced to cough up the same amount as a person traveling at busy timings! Knowing that the current toll road has been especially designed keeping in mind the peak traffic (which means higher cost of investment, maintenance, operations).

This means I, a lean period traveler, who actually requires only 2 lane road, is FORCED to pay for a 4 lane roads because all the people around feel is is fair and just that everyone should pay the same.

You are robbing me by forcing me to pay the per MB rate just because you felt it is fair and everyone wants a neutral internet.

Private enterprises are all required to follow a few rules and regulations in place whether it be minimum wages, provident funds, gratuity, etc.
And where these regulations are not followed (the un-organised and backward sectors), it does lead to exploitation to a large extent.
Plus, I think when you say this, you are speaking against your own point. We want the internet to be free and not controlled by telecom or the government. Are you for controlling it? by tie ups made between your ISP and the vendor, they are in a way controlling your internet experience. If the vendor was so inclined, he could offer freebie's to user's from a certain telecom provider. Let him do that and try to get customer's to come to his site and buy, rather than saying let people access my site and block/throttle my competitors. There is a difference between wooing and forcing my hand.

Variable toll prices (peak time based tolls) according to me is a fair exercise since it applies equally to everyone travelling during the peak time. I feel it is something that will eventually start getting implemented.

I am not assuming anything, but it is the future that we are talking about so you are predicting something and I am predicting the opposite. The fact remains that zero rating, subsidised access to selective services is something that is stopped/rejected the world over with the single reason that these have a strong possibility of violating net neutrality and shunting innovation.

[roy_libran]

Originally Posted by Jaggu

Judges, economists, technologist all agree that it is essential not to put such business interest first into something essential and deep impacting like internet.

It is time, that Internet is treated in line with Essential Services and steps taken to ensure that no one commands a lion's share of the same.
Regulations to protect the freedom of the internet and preventing oligopolies is a must.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

With such a fundamental disconnect in the arguments, there is no point arguing.

There indeed, is, a fundamental disconnect, as you rightly highlight many posts back.

[StarrySky]

Originally Posted by alpha1

1. Exactly. And therefore nothing is absolutely fair. The whole story around fairness is based on biased way of looking at things inculcated right from childhood. Continuing from the toll road example - letting dynamic market pricing will always optimize the load on the road. Perhaps the toll road constructor knowing that in dynamic pricing scenario, less people would be now inclined to travel at peak hours - may make only 3 lane road - thus reducing the overall cost.

Dynamic pricing is different since everyone pays the same. Dynamic pricing exists in Internet access in India - like reduced rates or free data usage during the nights. However, suggesting you pay for some sites while you do not pay for others (and not based on my choices) is not dynamic pricing - the better term probably is "Restrictive Trade Practice".

Originally Posted by alpha1

2. So what is the issue if Whatsapp again starts charging back? If you do not like the service and do not like paying, you make a switch.

Suppose Whatsapp charges Rs.60 per year like they did earlier, why would you switch if your basic internet packet from your mobile operator costs Rs.100 a month? While WhatsApp charges may be "visible", charges of Flipkart or other sites may not be so visible in subtle pricing changes. Even if it is higher than a competitor's price by Rs.20, will you switch because switching will cost you Rs.100 every month "directly"? Eventually, you will be paying the same Rs.100 extra effectively and indirectly every month to access a restricted list of sites. And so will everyone else (even those who pay for unrestricted internet) because you want subsidy. And you will not change because you will still have "zero cost" internet.

Originally Posted by blacksport

A regulated market is regulated by govt. A private player deciding how and what he sells is free market. You may want to read up.

You may want to think a bit about the word "regulated". How is a private player "regulating" my access based on his own commercial agreements (and not my choice), "free" for me?

If the AirTel Zero platform allowed "me" and a service provider "of my choice" on the internet to reach an agreement where he will pay AirTel for my access to his own site, then that would be OK from the point of view of net neutrality (although eventually this would also lead to price hikes). It is not for AirTel to decide what I should do.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by StarrySky

You may want to think a bit about the word "regulated". How is a private player "regulating" my access based on his own commercial agreements (and not my choice), "free" for me?

I do not have to define the word. There is already an accepted definition for the word "regulated". Please look up. When we talk about free market vs regulated market, the latter is one where the government imposes restrictions.

If the AirTel Zero platform allowed "me" and a service provider "of my choice" on the internet to reach an agreement where he will pay AirTel for my access to his own site, then that would be OK from the point of view of net neutrality (although eventually this would also lead to price hikes).

I will reiterate. The paid internet can coexist with the restricted internet. You would be free to choose the paid option or the restricted one. OR, you can even have both - like restricted one in your mobile and paid one at home.

It is not for AirTel to decide what I should do.

Very true. Similarly it is not for the rest of the world to tell me what internet I should use. We all can choose what is best for each of us.

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by blacksport

More analogies! If somebody pays more than me to access a comfort which I couldn't why should I fret over it? If a ISP sells me a restricted internet which comes for a lesser cost, why should you worry about it? Those who don't want a restricted internet could go for the full thali. Why do you want to take my freedom to choose away from me?

BTW, lets do this thought experiment:

Out of the 1 billion in India, if 100 million supports net neutrality while the rest of the 900 million would do with a restricted internet, why do you want to take that choice away from the 900 million people?

On the contrary, if 900 million supports net neutrality, then why this hullabaloo? Restricted internet is already dead. Why do you need a legislation for that?

Again, if 900 million supports a restricted internet, and you think that they do it because they are ignorant, why do you think that you can think better than them?

Free markets, anyone?

First off, the higher charges should be applicable to the comfort factor, not access. The ISP selling restricted access is also restricting those who don't want this preferential access. The Thali in this case would get you random dishes first and rice or roti on another day when full Thali orders are fewer, you'll be told that after you've paid.

Before you experiment. Here's are actual facts and figures.
Only 20%of Indians have Internet access. The majority, around 60% have access only on mobile, less than 100 million have any say about net neutrality. The regulating agency is in cahoots with operators. The 900 million in your example will be better served when they can choose what they want with their data, whether it is buying from Amazon or the local store that has a website, instead of the government starting a racket to protect the big boys.

Free markets don't apply to every industry, compare rail services in the UK versus France or Germany, the free market has been a disaster. The Internet will be a tool to deliver services that go far beyond crap like Facebook and WhatsApp, I won't trust the licensed monopolies (the telcos you support have chosen to be the rent seeking class, now they want to benefit from work they haven't done) to decide what's best for the country. The TRAI paper mentions national security threats from an open Internet, clear evidence that the right people have been paid off.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

First off, the higher charges should be applicable to the comfort factor, not access. The ISP selling restricted access is also restricting those who don't want this preferential access. The Thali in this case would get you random dishes first and rice or roti on another day when full Thali orders are fewer, you'll be told that after you've paid.

Before you experiment. Here's are actual facts and figures.
Only 20%of Indians have Internet access. The majority, around 60% have access only on mobile, less than 100 million have any say about net neutrality. The regulating agency is in cahoots with operators. The 900 million in your example will be better served when they can choose what they want with their data, whether it is buying from Amazon or the local store that has a website, instead of the government starting a racket to protect the big boys.

Free markets don't apply to every industry, compare rail services in the UK versus France or Germany, the free market has been a disaster. The Internet will be a tool to deliver services that go far beyond crap like Facebook and WhatsApp, I won't trust the licensed monopolies (the telcos you support have chosen to be the rent seeking class, now they want to benefit from work they haven't done) to decide what's best for the country. The TRAI paper mentions national security threats from an open Internet, clear evidence that the right people have been paid off.

You choose to ignore the fact that you can choose a paid, unlimited-access internet if that is what you want. Why should you want to restrict the liberty of others to choose what is better for them?

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by blacksport

You choose to ignore the fact that you can choose a paid, unlimited-access internet if that is what you want. Why should you want to restrict the liberty of others to choose what is better for them?

Yes, for now.
But in the absense of a regulatory framework what is stopping telcos from throttling sites they do not like.
This happened in USA where comcast started throttling netflix.
If you Allow "ZERO" with a walled garden, you are basically allowing a controlled internet.
This goes against freedom.

Does having a forced open internet go against "freedom of telcos". Well, it does not matter. Individual freedom should always have greater freedom than freedom of corporations, unless you want to live in a oligarchy. Of course alpha1 may disagree with me, and think that corporate freedom needs higher priority. But then that is his opinion, which makes it a fundamental disconnect between ideologies. Its perfectly valid to have an ideology where corporate freedom is supreme. After all, that is the very basis of "freedom"

Fun fact, thanks to lobbying USA is effectively an oligarchy

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

[avira_tk]

Originally Posted by blacksport

You choose to ignore the fact that you can choose a paid, unlimited-access internet if that is what you want. Why should you want to restrict the liberty of others to choose what is better for them?

The supporters of net neutrality are saying that access would be the first casualty of these proposed shakedown norms, the companies are pushing for that and protection fees from those who are in e-commerce. I have an opinion on this, but I can't take away someone's right to self destructive behaviour, you can choose to purchase access to fb alone, I don't want access to news blogs slowed because I chose to ignore status updates from people I barely know, access is the issue not pricing plans.