Net Neutrality in India

[Old guy]

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' date=' especially since the opinion in this case (from economists) isn't going to convince ANYBODY for/against NeT Neutrality.[/quote'] I find lack of understanding of this subject matter and trying to fool people with it offensive . Average guy will think they are stopping them from getting cheaper Facebook but that is not correct and telecom companies are clearly trying to fool people with this .

[Sachin=GOD]

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:

I don't think so. Once their infrastructure is up and running, which it mostly is in case of established teclos, it cannot cost more than voice.

[Old guy]

I don't think so. Once their infrastructure is up and running' date=' which it mostly is in case of established teclos, it cannot cost more than voice.[/quote'] Ok here is simple question .. If I use VoIP to call for 1 hour or use normal call what gives them more profit ? I am well aware calls do not even matter and Internet is used much more and hopefully they realise that people use phones differently than before but seeing how airtel planned VoIP packs and now this current situation it seems like they are worried about VoIP or other services replacing basic stuff like sms and calls ...it's myopic view but I think this is how they see it :giggle:

[coffee_rules]

I don't think so. Once their infrastructure is up and running' date=' which it mostly is in case of established teclos, it cannot cost more than voice.[/quote'] Data is from upgraded equipment, with 3G equipment, the capacity for voice calls is gone up much more for the same equipment. Data needs larger backhaul network which is why it is costlier than voice. That is why telcos want to move to VOIP eventually with 4G equipment. It costs a lot to buy newer equipment for Data and also operate voice with older equipment. Since the money is in Data going forward, telcos would rather charge more for data and offer unlimited voice/sms. In India, very few have gone for 4G still networks want to realize their investment in 2G/3G equipment. The BM is different compared to other markets.

[coffee_rules]

Ok here is simple question .. If I use VoIP to call for 1 hour or use normal call what gives them more profit ? I am well aware calls do not even matter and Internet is used much more and hopefully they realise that people use phones differently than before but seeing how airtel planned VoIP packs and now this current situation it seems like they are worried about VoIP or other services replacing basic stuff like sms and calls ...it's myopic view but I think this is how they see it :giggle:

Without unlimited voice minutes, telcos would prefer you use normal voice minutes than VOIP which is more profitable. With 4G, it is all the same for them. Hence, companies in US have started to offer unlimited voice/text as there is not much revenue in offering 3G services. The equipment has already paid and they are not even investing it in Butt have costly data plans to recover their investment in 4G equipment.

[Old guy]

Without unlimited voice minutes, telcos would prefer you use normal voice minutes than VOIP which is more profitable. With 4G, it is all the same for them. Hence, companies in US have started to offer unlimited voice/text as there is not much revenue in offering 3G services. The equipment has already paid and they are not even investing it in Butt have costly data plans to recover their investment in 4G equipment.

i see ..thanks for info but thing is people are using phones for lot of other things than calling and that will use much more data specially if streaming becomes popular here . i guess right thing to do if they are not making enough profit is to increase price of data packs but for some reason they will prefer these schemes like airtel zero.. edit ...also from what i understood reading your comment the 4g standard ha both calling and data capabilities so i hope this forces companies here to adapt 4g quicker than 3g :hmmm:

[Crookbond]

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' date= especially since the opinion in this case (from economists) isn't going to convince ANYBODY for/against NeT Neutrality.

Yaar, look at what that "economist" says. This chewtiya can't differentiate between protocol QoS and throttling. That is, the chewtiya has no idea that video requires more data and text requires less data - the Internet doesn't differentiate it; it is how it is designed. A front load washing machine uses more water than a top load washing machine. Does it mean that washing machines companies are discriminating water? Then, chewtiya goes ahead and makes further exaggerated generalizations and this is what he says - on a network where people use YouTube entertainment lectures will "crowd out"; e-lecture videos hosted on Coursera. That is such a moronic generalization because the fault here lies with the ISP not the application. For example, if you allow 10 people (7 fat, 3 thin) to stay in 1 BHK tomorrow - will you blame the fat people for being fat or will you blame the owner for letting the 10 people stay? Now, you understand why I got riled up? These chewtiya economists are looking to intentionally confuse people with jargon and draw false equivalence. This is the same thing that happened with FUP limits in 2008. The same "economists" sitting up in Airtel came up with those FUP limits. Today, these companies - Reliance, Tata and Airtel - run like a cartel and these FUP limit ranges are not justified. http://www.voxeu.org/article/against-network-neutrality-crowding-out-neutral-internet

[Crookbond]

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.

Right? Look at Matthews from COAI on EVERY Net Neutrality debate - feel like punching his teeth out.

[rkt.india]

Net neutrality: Internet.org may ask govt for help Mark Zuckerberg reacted, and he reacted fast. On Wednesday, just a few hours after online travel booking site Cleartrip opted out of Zuckerberg’s pet project Internet.org, which aims to get first time users on the internet, he decided to write a column for Hindustan Times and Mint. He wrote “Internet.org doesn’t violate net neutrality”. The column was online in just over 12 hours, at 11 am. That’s fast, considering it took months of preparation before Zuckerberg visited India in October last year. That is when he announced that Internet.org, an initiative he started in 2013, will soon have a India chapter. On February 10, the partnership was announced with the Anil Ambani-backed Reliance Communications. By then Internet.org already had stitched 38 partnerships, mainly with news and information sites, to offer stripped down versions, or basic internet services to first time internet users. All hell broke lose when Cleartrip opted out, and subsequently NDTV, and disaster struck when the Times Group, which owns English dailies Times of India and Economic Times, asked all other publishers on Internet.org to “jointly withdraw”. Sources also said that Facebook might ask the government to intervene in the matter, as Internet.org does not go against the norms of net neutrality, that is, “no blocking, no throttling, no discrimination”. “We want to keep the internet open. Net neutrality ensures network operators don’t discriminate by limiting access to services you want to use… Internet.org doesn’t block or throttle any other services, or create fast lanes. We will never prevent people accessing other services, and we will not use fast lanes. We’re also open to including all mobile operators in Internet.org, and we’re not stopping anyone from joining,” Zuckerberg wrote in his column. The stakes are high, and there is a reason for that. In just a couple of months, the platform has gathered more than a few million users in India. Globally, Internet.org has 600 million users. Rcom has only launched Internet.org in six circles, and plans to complete the pan-India launch by end of this year. At around 10 PM on Wednesday, Reliance and Facebook officials got on a call to discuss the matter. “Facebook officials were surprised with what is happening in India,” said a person in know of the call. If the Times Group manages to convince other publishers to opt out of Internet.org, only 15, out of 38 partners, will be left, which will mean less user attraction for the platform. What changed in two months that seems to derail Zuckerberg’s pet project? On April 6, Airtel Zero was launched which allowed free access of few mobile apps through the platform, by paying a certain amount. There was backlash on social media and Flipkart which was on Airtel Zero opted out. Meanwhile, Facebook officials explained that unlike Airtel Zero, there is no financial gain involved. But that too isn’t so transparent. Facebook stands to gain, and so are the partners on Internet.org, and Rcom too. Even though the services offered are basic internet services, which do not include sharing of multimedia and other video content, it helps in getting more people addicted to the internet. The reason is simple. There are around 900 million mobile phone users in India. Only 75%, or 675 million, of that have internet-enabled phones. Of that, around 370 million devices are second-generation internet-enabled, but only 20% of that use internet. Zuckerberg sees a huge opportunity to introduce the remaining population to the internet, and to Facebook and Whatsapp. As far as RCom is concerned, sources said that the company is getting many new first time users. Once on Internet.org, it is easier to convert full time data users who would buy data packs. For Facebook, the more number of users it has, more eye-balls it generates for its advertising revenue.

http://www.financialexpress.com/article/companies/internet-org-may-ask-govt-for-help/64374/

[Sachin=GOD]

@DM - here's something that will make you really really angry - http://swarajyamag.com/economy/the-one-sided-discourse-on-net-neutrality/ The amount of BS written in this article is incredible. Quite disappointed that Swarajya magazine would have such an article.

[coffee_rules]

@DM - here's something that will make you really really angry - http://swarajyamag.com/economy/the-one-sided-discourse-on-net-neutrality/ The amount of BS written in this article is incredible. Quite disappointed that Swarajya magazine would have such an article.

He doesn't understand air interface. It is a single pipe and there can different classes of users. But all users of a class would have more or less the same speed. If in the same class of user, one gets gets 10 Mbps to access flipkart users, then other users of the same class will be choked and they won't get their guaranteed rate.

[Crookbond]

@DM - here's something that will make you really really angry - http://swarajyamag.com/economy/the-one-sided-discourse-on-net-neutrality/ The amount of BS written in this article is incredible. Quite disappointed that Swarajya magazine would have such an article.

Nah, I am not that disappointed. You should try visiting the offices of SwarajyaMag and you'd know the credibility of the people who run the magazine. Don't believe me? Here's from the co-founder of Swarajya Mag

I had the opportunity to experience the consequences of this model up close as an editor at an avowedly right-wing digital-media start-up. There was of course no need for a newsroom. The generation of content was to be almost entirely outsourced to members of the community or people from different walks of life who broadly subscribed to the promoters’ worldview. The hatred towards certain journalists perceived as “compromised” had turned into contempt for the very craft of journalism. In effect, what we were trying to palm off as journalism was nothing other than the opinions of friends, reheated on hobs of self-righteousness, fired by anger and garnished with a generous dash of our in-house sauce of ideology. Every second piece that came to our desks for publication—be it on cricket, cinema or civic pride—would inevitably be an evisceration of Nehruvian socialism, written by someone not yet twenty-five. In one such instance, an irate community correspondent, when asked to substantiate a passage bordering on the perfidious, argued that since there would be a statutory disclaimer at the end of his piece, the editors should confine themselves to issues of grammar and syntax. The risk of upsetting such writers, I was told, was two-fold. One, the supply of content would dry up and two, there could be a potential loss of subscription revenues and readership. The disgruntled authors who happened to be Twitter titans could influence their followers—who ran in the thousands—into believing we were yet another mainstream media mimic. In the fifteen years that I spent at more than half a dozen newsrooms, I had not heard the articulation of the fears of losing revenues because of alienating constituency X or Y, nearly as often as I did in three months that I spent at a place that prided itself on being an alternative to the corrupt mainstream.

http://www.caravanmagazine.in/vantage/j-minus-model-can-digital-media-outfits-survive-without-journalists-their-newsrooms There are "fans" who jizz at their name - look at the provocation words, phrases and headlines used by someone of these websites and you'd know that their hormones are imbalanced.

[Crookbond]

So here is my rebuttal to Muthuraman why should the government, or anyone else for that matter, dictate terms on the pricing strategy between a willing consumer and a willing service provider? The very question itself is an assault on the principles of free market! Because ****, free market doesn't mean neoliberalism, unregulated market. Also, Internet is not ISP's baap ki jaagir. f the ISP allows me to access few websites or applications at a faster speed than what I signed up for (i.e. positive discrimination, for e.g. allowing me to access Flipkart at 10 MBps when I signed up for 2 MBps, by taking money from Flipkart), why should that be a problem for anyone? Because ****, you need to tell me who pays for the "extra speed". Also, extra speed means "preferential access". The **** that you are and have the typical attitude of "Apna kaam banta, toh bhaad mein jaaye junta". Is the Govt interfering when Flipkart offers to ship my products for free? Because , Flipkart owns the product but ISP's don't own the Internet airwaves. False equivalence.

[Sachin=GOD]

Nah, I am not that disappointed. You should try visiting the offices of SwarajyaMag and you'd know the credibility of the people who run the magazine. Don't believe me? Here's from the co-founder of Swarajya Mag http://www.caravanmagazine.in/vantage/j-minus-model-can-digital-media-outfits-survive-without-journalists-their-newsrooms There are "fans" who jizz at their name - look at the provocation words, phrases and headlines used by someone of these websites and you'd know that their hormones are imbalanced.

Yeah I read that piece in caravan. But Swarajya is still better than most of the 'news' magazines in India which are either doing Modi Bhakti or Modi Bashing. It's got a good editorial team and a lot of the articles are good.

[Sachin=GOD]

So here is my rebuttal to Muthuraman why should the government, or anyone else for that matter, dictate terms on the pricing strategy between a willing consumer and a willing service provider? The very question itself is an assault on the principles of free market! Because chewtiye, free market doesn't mean neoliberalism, unregulated market. Also, Internet is not ISP's baap ki jaagir. f the ISP allows me to access few websites or applications at a faster speed than what I signed up for (i.e. positive discrimination, for e.g. allowing me to access Flipkart at 10 MBps when I signed up for 2 MBps, by taking money from Flipkart), why should that be a problem for anyone? Because g****, you need to tell me who pays for the "extra speed". Also, extra speed means "preferential access". The chewtiya that you are and have the typical attitude of "Apna kaam banta, toh bhaad mein jaaye junta". F**** off! Is the Govt interfering when Flipkart offers to ship my products for free? Because chewtiye, Flipkart owns the product but ISP's don't own the Internet airwaves. False equivalence.

Again, calm down. You're not going to achieve anything by abusing these people.

[Crookbond]

Yeah I read that piece in caravan. But Swarajya is still better than most of the 'news' magazines in India which are either doing Modi Bhakti or Modi Bashing. It's got a good editorial team and a lot of the articles are good.

The cultural articles are good in SM not "news releases".

[Crookbond]

Again' date=' calm down. You're not going to achieve anything by abusing these people.[/quote'] Dude, I am calm :om:

[Sachin=GOD]

Dude' date=' I am calm :om:[/quote'] Never seen you abuse so much as on this topic

[Detonator]

So here is my rebuttal to Muthuraman Because chewtiye, free market doesn't mean neoliberalism, unregulated market. Also, Internet is not ISP's baap ki jaagir. Because g****, you need to tell me who pays for the "extra speed". Also, extra speed means "preferential access". The chewtiya that you are and have the typical attitude of "Apna kaam banta, toh bhaad mein jaaye junta". F**** off! Because chewtiye, Flipkart owns the product but ISP's don't own the Internet airwaves. False equivalence.

Internet is not ISP's baap ki jaagir, but the point in case with ISP's are that the users are accessing Internet over their infrastructure. So they want something like a tiered system, like e.g., the toll plazas on highways (even there is an option of taking service roads if you don't want to pay), which is a highly regressive and archaic approach. This would threaten new innovations because the changing nature of internet. I have a feeling that this would terribly backfire on telecom industry, if companies like Google, FB and Microsoft start building their own infra and provide voice call service ala skype credits. The author deserves the abuse though, moron :winky:

[Kalia_Test]

So here is my rebuttal to Muthuraman why should the government, or anyone else for that matter, dictate terms on the pricing strategy between a willing consumer and a willing service provider? The very question itself is an assault on the principles of free market! Because chewtiye, free market doesn't mean neoliberalism, unregulated market. Also, Internet is not ISP's baap ki jaagir. f the ISP allows me to access few websites or applications at a faster speed than what I signed up for (i.e. positive discrimination, for e.g. allowing me to access Flipkart at 10 MBps when I signed up for 2 MBps, by taking money from Flipkart), why should that be a problem for anyone? Because g****, you need to tell me who pays for the "extra speed". Also, extra speed means "preferential access". The chewtiya that you are and have the typical attitude of "Apna kaam banta, toh bhaad mein jaaye junta". F**** off! Is the Govt interfering when Flipkart offers to ship my products for free? Because chewtiye, Flipkart owns the product but ISP's don't own the Internet airwaves. False equivalence.

I read this argument a few times. Who pays? Flipkart pays or Facebook pays. And NO it is not necessarily passed on to consumer. That is NOT how Economics works. There might be much better arguments PRO NN but this 'ultimately customer will pay' is flawed IMO. Let us take example of facebook. They have a product that is scalable and incremental profits do not need commensurate incremental investments i.e they have operating leverage. Now assume that Facebook is free and will be free. - Lets say it now has 10 million customers, advertising revenue of 10 million USD and cost of servers, employees,etc is 5 million USD per annum so a 50% Gross Profit margin. - It wants to increase its customer base to 20 million users so that its revenue will be 20 million. Now its server and employee cost might increase by only 1 million more and to maintain the same profitability ( 50%), it has 4 million USD that it can invest to get the additional revenue. It has chosen to subsidize the cost of access to customers.