coffee_rules Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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. Between a server hosted in a country to a customer in another country lies a vast network which is not owned by either the ISP or the content provider. How can they have a business model where they don't own the equipment? This would kill the very idea of Internet, we will have a FBnet, Flipkarnet etc. Why stop there, they can have tie ups among device makers and have FBfone where FB can accessed free!
Crookbond Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Never seen you abuse so much as on this topic All in good fun man.
Crookbond Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 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. So, if that is the case - there should be no issue with releasing the complete financial deal between Facebook/Airtel and Internet.Org apps/Airtel Zero apps? Why is the deal hush-hush? For someone who has sat in the same room as Mittal, I know what's going on here. You might be too naïve to understand how these cute altruistic deals work but not me. But, you want better arguments - here are better arguments. Facebook wants to position itself as the Internet [0]. Once these "poor" have money - where will they spend their money? On Facebook and its partners - Facebook is not the Internet. The poor are made to see a stripped down, shallow version of the Internet which Facebook controls btw - and leads to unfair advantage for competitors. It is quite convenient that Bing - a Facebook business partner - is an Internet.org app over Google. Similarly, an industry leading job portal - Naukri doesn't feature but Babajob does. Youtube doesn't feature but Facebook Videos are fine. Whom is Facebook trying to fool here? [0] Millions of Facebook users have no idea they’re using the internet Also, :thefinger: IF you ever say that's now economics work. Economics works for what works right and right doesn't work on economics. The cute economist theories and the economics can sit right besides the garbage bins and discuss the "economics" - Internet doesn't care. Read More - http://www.hindustantimes.com/technology-topstories/mr-zuckerberg-facebook-is-not-and-should-not-be-the-internet/article1-1337944.aspx
Kalia_Test Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Between a server hosted in a country to a customer in another country lies a vast network which is not owned by either the ISP or the content provider. How can they have a business model where they don't own the equipment? This would kill the very idea of Internet' date=' we will have a FBnet, Flipkarnet etc. Why stop there, they can have tie ups among device makers and have FBfone where FB can accessed free![/quote'] Well we have entire export business models of cotton and rice and Oil and meat where the producers don't own the ships nor trains and trucks isn't it? And the enablers of this export business do charge higher or lower depending on competition ( it is a different case if its a monopoly which it is not. And neither is telco business a monopoly. Competitive forces come to play everywhere it is a free market ).
Crookbond Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Internet is not ISP's baap ki jaagir' date=' [b']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: So? They are earning f**** revenues from it - 10x times more. They now want to earn 100x because they fear that their lazy non-creative dumb brains won't innovate and other people will. So, they want to stack their kitty.
FischerTal Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Never seen you abuse so much as on this topic Dexter Morgan :nervous:
Crookbond Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Well we have entire export business models of cotton and rice and Oil and meat where the producers don't own the ships nor trains and trucks isn't it? And the enablers of this export business do charge higher or lower depending on competition ( it is a different case if its a monopoly which it is not. And neither is telco business a monopoly. Competitive forces come to play everywhere it is a free market ). STOP! Stop drawing false analogies. Please read my prior posts before you compare Internet airwaves to cotton and rice. These are physical products owned by the producers, Internet airwaves are NOT.
Kalia_Test Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 STOP! Stop drawing false analogies. Please read my prior posts before you compare Internet airwaves to cotton and rice. These are physical products owned by the producers' date=' Internet airwaves are NOT.[/quote'] Looks like you are too worked up to even read what I wrote. I have not compared cotton and rice to internet airwaves. I compared rights to a sea route,etc. Rice and cotton = Content Sea route = Airwaves Anyway leave it and chill :two_thumbs_up:
Crookbond Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Looks like you are too worked up to even read what I wrote. I have not compared cotton and rice to internet airwaves. I compared rights to a sea route,etc. Rice and cotton = Content Sea route = Airwaves Anyway leave it and chill :two_thumbs_up: Yeah, that is EXACTLY what I'm trying to tell you. The rice and cotton which you called "content" is owned by the producer. Web 2.0 is content owned by you. Similarly, sea routes are physical entities which are owned by nations - airwaves are owned by you and me.
coffee_rules Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Well we have entire export business models of cotton and rice and Oil and meat where the producers don't own the ships nor trains and trucks isn't it? And the enablers of this export business do charge higher or lower depending on competition ( it is a different case if its a monopoly which it is not. And neither is telco business a monopoly. Competitive forces come to play everywhere it is a free market ). Well, the producers pay for shipping. Shipping companies use the sea water that they don't own, but if sea was a man made infrastructure and the controller who doesn't own the infrastructure is letting only one company ship faster over others, it is unfair to all others who are using the same sea. All these are just analogies, but Information is what Internet is for, controlling Information leads to killing Innovation and leads to people dumbing down. Just like MSM, there one for right wingers and one for left wingers who give information only to their set of readers.
RedFever Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102033678947881 Over the past week in India, there has been a lot written about Internet.org and net neutrality. I’d like to share my position on these topics here for everyone to see. First, I’ll share a quick story. Last year I visited Chandauli, a small village in northern India that had just been connected to the internet. In a classroom in the village, I had the chance to talk to a group of students who were learning to use the internet. It was an incredible experience to think that right there in that room might be a student with a big idea that could change the world — and now they could actually make that happen through the internet. The internet is one of the most powerful tools for economic and social progress. It gives people access to jobs, knowledge and opportunities. It gives voice to the voiceless in our society, and it connects people with vital resources for health and education. I believe everyone in the world deserves access to these opportunities. In many countries, however, there are big social and economic obstacles to connectivity. The internet isn’t affordable to everyone, and in many places awareness of its value remains low. Women and the poor are most likely to be excluded and further disempowered by lack of connectivity. This is why we created Internet.org, our effort to connect the whole world. By partnering with mobile operators and governments in different countries, Internet.org offers free access in local languages to basic internet services in areas like jobs, health, education and messaging. Internet.org lowers the cost of accessing the internet and raises the awareness of the internet’s value. It helps include everyone in the world’s opportunities. We’ve made some great progress, and already more than 800 million people in 9 countries can now access free basic services through Internet.org. In India, we’ve already rolled out free basic services on the Reliance network to millions of people in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Telangana. And we just launched in Indonesia on the Indosat network today. We’re proud of this progress. But some people have criticized the concept of zero-rating that allows Internet.org to deliver free basic internet services, saying that offering some services for free goes against the spirit of net neutrality. I strongly disagree with this. We fully support net neutrality. We want to keep the internet open. Net neutrality ensures network operators don’t discriminate by limiting access to services you want to use. It’s an essential part of the open internet, and we are fully committed to it. But net neutrality is not in conflict with working to get more people connected. These two principles — universal connectivity and net neutrality — can and must coexist. To give more people access to the internet, it is useful to offer some service for free. If someone can’t afford to pay for connectivity, it is always better to have some access than none at all. Internet.org doesn’t block or throttle any other services or create fast lanes -- and it never will. We’re open for all mobile operators and we’re not stopping anyone from joining. We want as many internet providers to join so as many people as possible can be connected. Arguments about net neutrality shouldn’t be used to prevent the most disadvantaged people in society from gaining access or to deprive people of opportunity. Eliminating programs that bring more people online won’t increase social inclusion or close the digital divide. It will only deprive all of us of the ideas and contributions of the two thirds of the world who are not connected. Every person in the world deserves access to the opportunities the internet provides. And we can all benefit from the perspectives, creativity and talent of the people not yet connected. We have a historic opportunity to connect billions of more people worldwide for the first time. We should work together to make that happen now. Cannot see anything wrong with internet.org concept.So if poor people have access to a few select websites, how is it going to harm net neutrality.
CSK Fan Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102033678947881 Cannot see anything wrong with internet.org concept.So if poor people have access to a few select websites, how is it going to harm net neutrality. Because it will be other people deciding what websites the poor can access. Because some *****y websites will be promoted over great ones. And because it is obvious to every man and his dog that poor people are the least concern of those hiding behind them to push their agenda, which is to control the net and push their own companies.
Crookbond Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102033678947881 Cannot see anything wrong with internet.org concept.So if poor people have access to a few select websites, how is it going to harm net neutrality. Internet.org chooses business partner Bing over industry leader Google, chooses BabaJobs (Reliance partner) over Naukri, chooses Facebook video over industry leader Youtube video. Who decides what sites should be on Internet.ORG - Facebook? Who wants to play kingmaker - Facebook? Basically, Internet.org is just like Airtel Zero who wants to be in a position to power. Why should I allow Facebook to be in that position? It's not ONLY about NN, it is about NN + anti-competitive nature.
Old guy Posted April 20, 2015 Posted April 20, 2015 this is what ganesh shared on facebook https://www.facebook.com/caiuspreposterus/photos/a.287046888007142.74045.258395340872297/1118895938155562/?type=1&theater also check out article on verge this situation is actually lot more deeper than jsut airtel zero and internet.org "The TRAI paper is suggesting that each and every one of [the apps on your phone] needs to get a license to be used in India," one site wrote, as part of a summary of the paper. http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/20/8456943/india-net-neutrality-facebook-internet-org-zero-rating
Sachin=GOD Posted April 22, 2015 Author Posted April 22, 2015 Rahul Gandhi will speak on net neutrality in parliament.
zubinpepsi Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 has anyone watched this.. brilliant as usual by John.. hope he does something on NN in India fpbOEoRrHyU
BeautifulGame Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Rahul Gandhi hints at 'nexus' between US corporates and Modi government During his intervention on net neutrality issue, Rahul Gandhi brought up US president Barack Obama's article praising PM Narendra Modi in TIME magazine. The world's biggest industrialists are in the US and it is for the first time that the US president has written an article on the Indian Prime Minister. Earlier, the US presidents used to praise former USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Please change the law or write a new law on net neutrality: Rahul Gandhi** One million people are fighting for net neutrality and the govt is trying to carve out the net and hand it over to the corporates: Rahul Gandhi in Lok Sabha Please change the law or write a new law on net neutrality: Rahul Gandhi**
bulbul Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Rahu baba saying Modi govt will snatch internet and give it to corporates
rkt.india Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Rahul Gandhi hints at 'nexus' between US corporates and Modi government During his intervention on net neutrality issue, Rahul Gandhi brought up US president Barack Obama's article praising PM Narendra Modi in TIME magazine. The world's biggest industrialists are in the US and it is for the first time that the US president has written an article on the Indian Prime Minister. Earlier, the US presidents used to praise former USSR leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Please change the law or write a new law on net neutrality: Rahul Gandhi** One million people are fighting for net neutrality and the govt is trying to carve out the net and hand it over to the corporates: Rahul Gandhi in Lok Sabha Please change the law or write a new law on net neutrality: Rahul Gandhi** when did this happen?
Detonator Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Rahu baba saying Modi govt will snatch internet and give it to corporates Rahul baba :hehe:
Recommended Posts