[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Do car companies charge based on per kg weight + quality of service? A piece of metal acquires value based on what it is used for. If I find more value using a bit to send voice data than textual data, the ISP is justified in charging differently. It is not the bit, but the value contained in the bit that is important.

Are you serious??? Going by this logic, you should be fine with telecom companies listening in on our calls to decide what to charge us for that call. I mean, if I'm doing a business deal worth millions via a phone call, that should be charged more than an ordinary conversation between 2 friends.

I don't think that you don't get the logic behind Net Neutrality and its utmost importance. I think you get it, but you're simply making irrational arguments, in which case, I don't see the point in this discussion.

[noopster]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Whether it is desirable depends on what you wanted in the first place. If you wanted to access that particular website, yet subscribed to a plan that provided restricted access and then complain, it is not justified. You should select a plan that suits you, not a free one. Imagine going to a party that said free drinks, with a constraint that said "Old Monk only", and then complain that you weren't provided Bacardi.

Dear sir, if some website wanted to charge me for accessing their content and I badly want to see that content, I will DEFINITELY pay for it. I will pay the guys who created that content, i.e. the website owners, and have done so on several occasions in personal and professional capacity, e.g. to purchase research reports online. What I fail to see is why I must pay Airtel or BSNL for that content!

And I'm glad you went all out and said that you find the concept of net neutrality "bad". It gives the rest of us a good idea of where you stand on this issue.

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Policies could be selected depending on the larger good. But when you decide to privatize the telecom sector, sell spectrum to them, charge licence fees, collect taxes on their profits, it is not right to dictate their business model. If they want, they can nationalize the telecom sector and run it the way they want.

Pause a minute to ponder why you should not ask for nationalizing the telecom sector? Why do you want to have all the benefits of privatization, but not allow them to be their self?

Why? If the business model under which the spectrum was auctioned was "privatize the telecom sector, sell spectrum to them, charge licence fees, collect taxes on their profits" is not the government (and in extension the public) correct in demanding that the ISP stick to the business model?

Don't you think that when the decision to privatise the spectrum was made, due consideration would have been made as to whether the private players buying the spectrum and operating in the said business model have enough scope to make reasonable profits? The base price itself would have made provision for that

But when a new business model is presented, the decision has to be made based on the relative merit of the same and not on "how dare he do that?' or 'no, it is not ethical to charge that' Because, when I read the arguments from the pro-neutrality team, I get a feel that most of them are taking moral high ground (As an aside, the Americans generally always tend to take a moral high ground - the argument for GM seeds was one example)

You definitely have a point there. And I agree with your argument that free market policies often don't work in the short term. But I do not agree that we should legislate base on no evidence, but mere speculations.

This is precisely what we should be looking for. Decisions has to be made based on cost-benefit analysis, not speculations. There are huge ramifications both from economical and ethical point of view in going for either options. It is no longer a free market once the government decided that it is a national resource and can be licensed out to private players

[nareshov]

Here's a joint statement by some of the professors in Indian universities which might interest you: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...Z7A-PVKq38/pub

The consultation paper includes several arguments for why network neutrality must be compromised or weakened. This joint statement counters those arguments, focusing on four technical aspects of digital networks, and urges the TRAI to strongly support net neutrality.

Net neutrality and congestion: The first and foremost argument put forth by the consultation paper is that net neutrality must be violated to solve congestion in the network: “10% of mobile users actually consume 90% of operators’ bandwidth” (5.2, similar statements also in 5.17, 5.26, 5.28). This argument is fundamentally flawed technically, for congestion can effectively be addressed by looking only at the quantity of data, while preserving net neutrality. For instance, it would be well within the principles of net neutrality to serve the first GB of a user’s data fast, and the second GB of data slower. The second GB can also be priced higher. Such mechanisms are all too common in the physical world of mails. If the post office gets 90% postal mail from 10% of its users, it can either (a) impose limits of quantity of mail, or (b) price differentially based on amount of mail sent, or (c) simply increase its capacity. What it cannot do is to pry open every letter and price differently based on the content. To do so would be absurd. Likewise, if a road network is facing congestion, it would be absurd to charge road tax based on the identity of who is using the road, or based on whether the commuter is going to a bank or to a grocery store next to the bank.

Net neutrality and service differentiation: The second major argument put forth by the consultation paper, in different words (e.g. in 5.18, 5.21, 5.22), is that net neutrality must be violated to provide service differentiation, which is necessary for example in telemedicine applications or for specific business customers. This argument is also technically flawed. Network neutrality does not mean there is no service differentiation. It means that the choice for better service is made by the end customer, not by the network. For instance, if a remote clinic wants a certain network capacity to a city hospital’s telemedicine portal, it chooses to buy that extra capacity by paying the network operator. On the other hand, if net neutrality is violated, and the network operator made the choice, the clinic could end up with the same network capacity, not to the required hospital website, but to an e-commerce website of no use to the intended telemedicine.

Intelligence at the edge: Net neutrality is at the heart of the Internet architecture. The Internet architecture is essentially one where intelligence is pushed to the edge of the network: these are the content servers as well as the clients of these services at the other edge of the network (the smart-phones and laptops and PCs). This idea is fundamental to Internet’s success. This is the reason why any small developer or business can develop a website or smart-phone app and have it used by its customers. This contrasts the traditional telephone architecture where the end device is dumb and the network is intelligent (relatively speaking): you can do nothing but punch numbers or receive phone calls using the end device. The relative success of each of these models and the fact that even telephone companies have adopted the Internet model speaks for itself as to which architecture is better for innovation, for the economy, and for society. So when telecom network operators seek more control of how much traffic is used to which website or application (i.e., violate net neutrality by having “intelligence” in the network), the fundamental idea behind the Internet is under threat. The implications of this are huge, given that the Internet is central to today’s information age. (To its credit, the TRAI document acknowledges this in 5.6, 5.13, but not with sufficient weightage).

Misleading terminology: Finally, the consultation paper is misleading and confusing in title and terminology. The title as well the entire document uses the term “over-the-top” (OTT) services as though such services are some special services or applications. Now, any standard digital networks textbook, likely in its first chapter, would tell that any service or application using the Internet, runs “over-the-top” of the network. There is no example of an application which is not “over-the-top”. Thus the proposed regulatory framework encompasses every application and every use of the Internet, not just some special services. While the term OTT is common outside the consultation paper, it is misleading all the same. It is like a road construction company calling a school accessible by the road as an over-the-top service. Sure, one has to use the road to reach the school, but the term suggests that the road somehow has a role in the school’s education service over and above just using the road to reach the school.
In summary, there are no sound technical or economic reasons to violate net neutrality. In fact, such violation threatens the essential idea of the Internet itself. We urge the TRAI to maintain net neutrality in its strongest possible form, as this is crucial for a digitally empowered India.

Mod Note: Adding the entire content except the intro and the signatory names.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Do car companies charge based on per kg weight + quality of service? A piece of metal acquires value based on what it is used for. If I find more value using a bit to send voice data than textual data, the ISP is justified in charging differently. It is not the bit, but the value contained in the bit that is important.

You don't understand how TCP IP works. Bits are bits. A collection of Zeros or ones.There lots of digital electronics and networking textbooks you can study to understand TCP IP and basic networking concepts. It will greatly help you eliminate the gap in knowledge you have

And car analogy. Do car companies charge you based on where you drive to? Do electricity companies charge you whether you use Voltas or Hitachi AC?

No, they charge you for usage, and with net-neutrality ISPs will also have to do so.

Lastly coming to your point of "its all fear mongering and we will still have choice", lets take a look at DTH industry, and how much choice in channels do we have there.

Or lets take a look at the VAS SMS service fiasco which killed an industry before it even started.

Last but not the least, I did not make my reputation around Adobe Photoshop. Unless you are getting paid for all this, I would suggest you rethink your line of attack, and no go after individuals. By all means attack an idea if you feel fit to, no issues with that.

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Do car companies charge based on per kg weight + quality of service? A piece of metal acquires value based on what it is used for. If I find more value using a bit to send voice data than textual data, the ISP is justified in charging differently. It is not the bit, but the value contained in the bit that is important.

Wrong analogy - if you wanted to compare, the ISPs are actually the firms supplying the metal sheets to the car firms. Now whether the firms make luxury cars out of it or dumpsters; it's their choice. The ISPs/suppliers are free to decide the price of the metal on an overall basis; what the end firm decides to do with the metal is upto them.

Anyway analogies are a bad way of arguing points - it assumes that the other industry/case is correct in all terms which in realistic terms is not true.

[sgiitk]

Now the Telecom cos are crying about Skype and (possibly) WhatsApp. Whiners all. They have to learn to live with it. I expect BSNL/MTNL to be in their support.

[blackwasp]

I would like to share an example with you all regarding neutrality. We used to have a local cable connection for TV. Now, it was cheap, but on sunday's if there was a cricket match as well as F1 race, the cable operator used to broadcast only the cricket match. I literally had to call him every 5-10 mins and demand to put on the F1 race. Even then most of the time he did not put that channel on.

But now, I have got Tata Sky DTH. I can choose what channels I want and pay accordingly. Yes, you might argue that it is costlier than cable, but at least I pay for the service I get. Nobody here wants to get free internet or not pay for services. Rather, Many of us are willing to pay more to get ad free channels, better service etc.

The service providers want to eliminate the choice user has. It is ok if they charge more per GB data used, but how I use that is 100% my choice. They can't deny/throttle access to any website.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by blackwasp

But now, I have got Tata Sky DTH. I can choose what channels I want and pay accordingly. Yes, you might argue that it is costlier than cable, but at least I pay for the service I get. Nobody here wants to get free internet or not pay for services. Rather, Many of us are willing to pay more to get ad free channels, better service etc.

Your Cable Guy is the aspiration for the ISP. From that you've come to Tata sky, what they're trying now.
What you have right now is a monthly fixed bill to access the satellite sending signals from a worldwide union of broadcasters who're OK with you watching their channels if you've paid for accessing the satellite. Maybe they'll make you watch a genius knife commercial occasionally.

Airtel wants to be the Cable Guy.

[saket77]

Telcos are warning a 6-fold (yes, six times!) increase in data tariffs if Skype, whatsapp etc are not made chargeable! I say please go on and hike the tariffs...and see your business crumble!

Mobile operators on Friday said that they may have to increase data tariffs by up to six times to remain viable if the proposed regulations did not offer a level-playing field with net-based services such as Skype and WhatApp.

Although they "supported" net neutrality and launched a campaign to link the unconnected to the internet, they said that high data rates would become unaffordable for a large number of people, denying them access to the Internet.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/t...w/47046263.cms

[noopster]

Originally Posted by saket77

Telcos are warning a 6-fold (yes, six times!) increase in data tariffs if Skype, whatsapp etc are not made chargeable! I say please go on and hike the tariffs...and see your business crumble!

Well, they're feeling the heat...making the right noise of "supporting" net neutrality BUTTTTT their hearts are so big and bursting with love for the poor that alas! they need to take money from websites to make net accessible like roti, kapda, makaan. And those "over-the-top" (OTT) Skypes and Whatsapps of the world- how dare they not share revenue with the government or intercept messages leading to terrorist acts! [/s]

What got me absolutely was that the link in the middle of the page says

Click here to send an e-mail to Trai in favour of net neutrality

[tsk1979]

So, when your arguments fall flat, and nobody buys your BS, what do you do?
Blackmail!!

For those thinking whats wrong with a free plan. Well listen up. If free plan is allowed, it means net neutrality can be violated, this means operators can charge extra for whatsapp, skype or whatever they think threatens their business model.

[poloman]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

So, when your arguments fall flat, and nobody buys your BS, what do you do?
Blackmail!!

For those thinking whats wrong with a free plan. Well listen up. If free plan is allowed, it means net neutrality can be violated, this means operators can charge extra for whatsapp, skype or whatever they think threatens their business model.

One cannot argue both ways right? Agreed net neutrality is critical. But then one should not cry when telecos increase the data charges. Skype, Whatsapp and similar calling services are going to take away the last major chunk of their revenue. Now can any one suggest how are telecom companies going to survive if no one use the voice calling feature and SMS? Obviously they have to increase data rates. But 6 times..!!I doubt.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by poloman

One cannot argue both ways right? Agreed net neutrality is critical. But then one should not cry when telecos increase the data charges. Skype, Whatsapp and similar calling services are going to take away the last major chunk of their revenue. Now can any one suggest how are telecom companies going to survive if no one use the voice calling feature and SMS? Obviously they have to increase data rates. But 6 times..!!I doubt.

There is no restriction to charge whatever they want

But using this to threaten... that's what we are talking about.
Telcos are saying that if you make the net neutral, then we will be forced to increases prices and it will be out of the reach of the common man.

This is blackmail. Pure and simple. And cartelization is a an offense under the IPC.
COAI is behaving like a cartel, and must be broken up.

Coming back, if they want to charge 1000rs for 1MB of data, they are free to do so. But if 10 of them band together and offer this cartel set price, then the companies need to be broken up, because this is breaking the law. That said, some believe, the in the interest of freedom and free market, cartelization should be legal. Free market god will come down from the sky and break cartels by magic.

[poloman]

I don't have any sympathy for these telecom companies.I don't have any enmity either. But we have to bear in mind the ARPU figures in India are abysmally low.The average ARPU of Indian Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) is merely $2.96, compared to an international average of $35-40. So the regulators are going to closely look at this figure. If average revenue per user is falling to unsustainable levels, even the regulator will be forced to go with what these companies are saying.
I read some where that real challenge that faces mobile service operators in India is the user connecting to services like Whatsapp and Skype from Wifi at home or elsewhere. In case of a service like the SMS, the user was charged only at one end but in a service like Whatsapp both the sender and the receiver are billed for the data they consume. So they can easily counter this by raising the data rates. But they don't really have any control on the other scenario. The cartelization then has to extend to broadband vendors.