Kalia_Test Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 This is nice debate but can someone explain how this is different from toll-free number concept? 1. From the limited knowledge that I have, in a toll-free number concept ( like 1800-, 0800,etc ), the billing is done to the number instead of the originating telephone subscriber. So the caller will not be charged for the call but the recipient is charged. The recipients are typically corporates like Banks, Insurance Companies,etc that pay Telcos directly. 2. Assume I paid for 100 GB data and 500 minutes worth of calls for a given month. Now :- - Calls to a toll-free number do not count towards the 500 minutes. - If accessing say facebook or YT do not count towards the 10 GB, how is this different from the toll-free number concept? Extending the analogy, we need to affix postage stamps to send letters but in many cases, reply letters have 'postage paid by recipient' ( like shareholder resolutions,etc) Both toll-free numbers and reply letters are intended to make it easy for end customers to reach the companies. As long as Telcos are not blocking other apps,websites or deliberately slowing them down, why is it a big issue? Apologies if I am missing something very basic here :icflove:
Crookbond Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 This is nice debate but can someone explain how this is different from toll-free number concept? 1. From the limited knowledge that I have, in a toll-free number concept ( like 1800-, 0800,etc ), the billing is done to the number instead of the originating telephone subscriber. So the caller will not be charged for the call but the recipient is charged. The recipients are typically corporates like Banks, Insurance Companies,etc that pay Telcos directly. 2. Assume I paid for 100 GB data and 500 minutes worth of calls for a given month. Now :- - Calls to a toll-free number do not count towards the 500 minutes. - If accessing say facebook or YT do not count towards the 10 GB, how is this different from the toll-free number concept? Extending the analogy, we need to affix postage stamps to send letters but in many cases, reply letters have 'postage paid by recipient' ( like shareholder resolutions,etc) Both toll-free numbers and reply letters are intended to make it easy for end customers to reach the companies. As long as Telcos are not blocking other apps,websites or deliberately slowing them down, why is it a big issue? Apologies if I am missing something very basic here :icflove: Toll free numbers are platform independent - not tied in to a telecom.
coffee_rules Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 This is nice debate but can someone explain how this is different from toll-free number concept? 1. From the limited knowledge that I have, in a toll-free number concept ( like 1800-, 0800,etc ), the billing is done to the number instead of the originating telephone subscriber. So the caller will not be charged for the call but the recipient is charged. The recipients are typically corporates like Banks, Insurance Companies,etc that pay Telcos directly. 2. Assume I paid for 100 GB data and 500 minutes worth of calls for a given month. Now :- - Calls to a toll-free number do not count towards the 500 minutes. - If accessing say facebook or YT do not count towards the 10 GB, how is this different from the toll-free number concept? Extending the analogy, we need to affix postage stamps to send letters but in many cases, reply letters have 'postage paid by recipient' ( like shareholder resolutions,etc) Both toll-free numbers and reply letters are intended to make it easy for end customers to reach the companies. As long as Telcos are not blocking other apps,websites or deliberately slowing them down, why is it a big issue? Apologies if I am missing something very basic here :icflove: Internet was intended to be impartial, ISOs are supposed to charge for volume of data sent, it was not intended for ISOs to charge on the type of data sent to end users. It is like paying your water bill, you don't classify different types of water and charge for that. You pay for volume used. Internet is also a resource like water.
Kalia_Test Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 Toll free numbers are platform independent - not tied in to a telecom. Which means the owners of toll-free numbers will pay any telecom i.e they have a tie-up with all telecom service providers. So is it OK if Facebook ties-up with all ISPs i.e FB will be free regardless of which ISP you use?
vvvslaxman Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 Internet was intended to be impartial' date=' ISOs are supposed to charge for volume of data sent, it was not intended for ISOs to charge on the type of data sent to end users. It is like paying your water bill, you don't classify different types of water and charge for that. You pay for volume used. Internet is also a resource like water.[/quote'] US declared internet as an utility. Wonder if India will do the same.
Kalia_Test Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 Internet was intended to be impartial' date=' ISOs are supposed to charge for volume of data sent, it was not intended for ISOs to charge on the type of data sent to end users. It is like paying your water bill, you don't classify different types of water and charge for that. You pay for volume used. Internet is also a resource like water.[/quote'] Why are we looking at it that way? Why can't we look at it that usage of say FB is still chargeable but FB is paying the telco for it instead of you? Assume Facebook ( app or website ) has ability to calculate the bandwidth each user uses and at end of each month, it will generate a unique discount code for you that you can use to get the appropriate discount in your bill. Will that be OK? Effectively they are paying for your bandwidth usage on their site/app.If they do it this way, surely it does not violate any net neutrality stuff. However, this is a round about way and a simple way is to pay telcos directly?
Sachin=GOD Posted April 15, 2015 Author Posted April 15, 2015 As long as Telcos are not blocking other apps,websites or deliberately slowing them down, why is it a big issue? Apologies if I am missing something very basic here :icflove: If certain websites/apps have got into an agreement with telcos or have paid the telcos then they will definitely receive special treatment. In US sites like Netflix were being asked to pay more so as to be available to customers at high speed - now what happens in such a case is that the telcos will reduce the speed for other sites to give Netflix higher speed (or at least make it seem like it has higher speed since customers will get other sites at lower speed). In today's age when people are not willing to wait even a second, even a little delay in opening Amazon App will mean many customers automatically going to Flipkart/Snapdeal. And lower speed for other sites will obviously harm customers as it will in a way reduce competition.
Old guy Posted April 15, 2015 Posted April 15, 2015 If certain websites/apps have got into an agreement with telcos or have paid the telcos then they will definitely receive special treatment. In US sites like Netflix were being asked to pay more so as to be available to customers at high speed - now what happens in such a case is that the telcos will reduce the speed for other sites to give Netflix higher speed (or at least make it seem like it has higher speed since customers will get other sites at lower speed). In today's age when people are not willing to wait even a second, even a little delay in opening Amazon App will mean many customers automatically going to Flipkart/Snapdeal. And lower speed for other sites will obviously harm customers as it will in a way reduce competition. also one thing people do not get is that sure netflix will pay to ISP but netflix will still try to keep same profits and only way that happens is by increasing subscription prices..only losers here will be people like us .
Crookbond Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Which means the owners of toll-free numbers will pay any telecom i.e they have a tie-up with all telecom service providers. So is it OK if Facebook ties-up with all ISPs i.e FB will be free regardless of which ISP you use? Facebook is not equivalent to a toll free number. Facebook should tie up with ALL ISPs plus put all its competitors too should be on it. In addition, you need to tell me who is paying for this "free" access; so the financial deals should be made public too. Zero Rating is NN plus anti-trust rolled into one issue.
Crookbond Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 FYI, Orissa CM - Naveen Patnaik has wrote an open letter to TRAI to support Net Neutrality. A lot of organizations yesterday including NDTV, ClearTrip etc. pulled from FAcebook's Internet.org initiative.
Sachin=GOD Posted April 16, 2015 Author Posted April 16, 2015 FYI, Orissa CM - Naveen Patnaik has wrote an open letter to TRAI to support Net Neutrality. A lot of organizations yesterday including NDTV, ClearTrip etc. pulled from FAcebook's Internet.org initiative. Several MPs (Tharoor, Anurag Thakur etc) have also come out in support.
Sachin=GOD Posted April 16, 2015 Author Posted April 16, 2015 The ambiguous economics of Net neutrality There is as yet no consensus among economists about Net neutrality http://www.livemint.com/Industry/hz8BtbDLFnLkV69HU2EWUP/The-ambiguous-economics-of-Net-neutrality.html Interesting.
Crookbond Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Economists can f*** off - b!tches can't even understand basics of Internet. This trope of QoS is ultimately BS. If you don't have enough money to run your infrastructure, increase your price - don't f*** with the Internet.
Sachin=GOD Posted April 16, 2015 Author Posted April 16, 2015 Economists can f*** off - b!tches can't even understand basics of Internet. This trope of QoS is ultimately BS. If you don't have enough money to run your infrastructure' date=' increase your price - don't f*** with the Internet.[/quote'] Haha....calm down. Its just a different perspective, and one that is hardly going to change the opinion of anyone.
Crookbond Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Haha....calm down. Its just a different perspective' date=' and one that is hardly going to change the opinion of anyone.[/quote'] These people are spreading "raita" - and their arguments are BS. If they can't provide service, let the telcos pack up and leave. There are more than enough companies who can take up the mantle to make 10x times the money they would from data than they did from SMS/Voice calls. Check this article out. http://capitalmind.in/2015/04/telecom-companies-are-not-losing-money-to-data-services-the-net-neutrality-debate/ These b!tch telecoms want 100x more money in the name of these fallacious arguments. These "academic" discussions are just to spread more raita.
Sachin=GOD Posted April 16, 2015 Author Posted April 16, 2015 Mobile tariffs in India are among the lowest in the world. Also, the spectrum allocation pricing both during UPA and now NDA has been quite high leading to HUGE debt which means companies will have to increase tariffs soon. But companies don't seem to realize that Mobile Data is the future and its where their revenues would come from in the future. The more the customers use internet, the more they are getting addicted to various apps - and that's where biggest revenues will come from for telcos. These people are spreading "raita" - and their arguments are BS. If they can't provide service' date=' let the telcos pack up and leave. There are more than enough companies who can take up the mantle to [b']make 10x times the money they would from data than they did from SMS/Voice calls. Check this article out. http://capitalmind.in/2015/04/telecom-companies-are-not-losing-money-to-data-services-the-net-neutrality-debate/ These b!tch telecoms want 100x more money in the name of these fallacious arguments. These "academic" discussions are just to spread more raita. I made that point just yesterday. Mobile data, not voice, is the future. Right now telcos are unwisely going for short terms profits. The only thing they have to do is to go for FULL NET NEUTRALITY and provide good service - in due time Indian users will use so much of data that telcos will be rolling in profits. Thats an excellent link. Thanks :nice:
Old guy Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 Haha....calm down. Its just a different perspective' date=' and one that is hardly going to change the opinion of anyone.[/quote'] You know more you learn how Internet works more offensive this gets. Just think this way paying different rates for water for different purposes or petrol because that is how data is and how Internet works . I am all for increase in mobile tariffs if currently it's lower than sustainable but they should not fool people by free 'internet' .
Sachin=GOD Posted April 16, 2015 Author Posted April 16, 2015 These people are spreading "raita" - and their arguments are BS. If they can't provide service, let the telcos pack up and leave. There are more than enough companies who can take up the mantle to make 10x times the money they would from data than they did from SMS/Voice calls. Check this article out. http://capitalmind.in/2015/04/telecom-companies-are-not-losing-money-to-data-services-the-net-neutrality-debate/ These b!tch telecoms want 100x more money in the name of these fallacious arguments. These "academic" discussions are just to spread more raita. From the article: From Jun 2013 to Sep 2014 – a 15 month period prior to which data revenues were not separately disclosed – we can see that: Average revenues per user have gone up from 111 to 116, a Rs. 5 increase. (per month) Of that, Call Revenue per user is down by Rs. 3.18 per user per month, and SMS revenues have fallen by 24 paise per month. But Data revenues are up by Rs. 10.46 per month per user! This is not cannibalization, this is a new business model! Wow!!! And then telcos have the temerity to say that they are losing money on CALLS/SMS because of Data. These 3 figures about changes in SMS/CALL/DATA per user should be publicized heavily by the people running this campaign to make Net Neutral in India.
Sachin=GOD Posted April 16, 2015 Author Posted April 16, 2015 You know more you learn how Internet works more offensive this gets. Just think this way paying different rates for water for different purposes or petrol because that is how data is and how Internet works . I am all for increase in mobile tariffs if currently it's lower than sustainable but they should not fool people by free 'internet' . I'm already for Net Neutrality. Its just there's no need to get worked up because of someone's different opinion on the matter, especially since the opinion in this case (from economists) isn't going to convince ANYBODY for/against NeT Neutrality.
Old guy Posted April 16, 2015 Posted April 16, 2015 From the article: From Jun 2013 to Sep 2014 – a 15 month period prior to which data revenues were not separately disclosed – we can see that: Average revenues per user have gone up from 111 to 116, a Rs. 5 increase. (per month) Of that, Call Revenue per user is down by Rs. 3.18 per user per month, and SMS revenues have fallen by 24 paise per month. But Data revenues are up by Rs. 10.46 per month per user! This is not cannibalization, this is a new business model! Wow!!! And then telcos have the temerity to say that they are losing money on CALLS/SMS because of Data. These 3 figures about changes in SMS/CALL/DATA per user should be publicized heavily by the people running this campaign to make Net Neutral in India. Ok playing devils advocate here but does it cost them more to provide data ?if yes then having more revenue from data compared to voice etc is bad no ? I am well aware they are current,y more profitable but maybe they forecasted voice and sms falling lot more ...even if this is case the solution is increasing price not mess with how Internet works . Maybe I am just too sleepy and not thinking straight :cantstop:
Recommended Posts