Net Neutrality in Danger! We should do something about this

Steve_John

Member
Disciple
Apr 11, 2015
6
5
6
I am going to write for TRAI,
For your information its no where like a 1800 service. Tomorrow if google starts offering you YOU TUBE and G MAIL as free access but you have to pay for accessing lets say a new VIDEO start up you will have to pay! This is the fundamental problem of allowing free access... Rich companies will never let any company to grow and INNOVATION dies.. This is something we definitely do not need... If airtel is concerned about WhatsApp and Skype making it lose its revenue why can't they invest in companies and get their own versions of WhatsApp or Skype? If they can't innovate they loot that all AIRTEL is trying to do!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

baccilus

Well-Known Member
Adept
Oct 21, 2007
1,632
61
136
34
Chandigarh
@For those who think it is fine if the website pays for the internet access rather than the consumer: You do realise that in that case, you, the consumer becomes the commodity. What you can and can't browse is decided by other people who own your attention or are paying for it.
Majority of paying customers will nonetheless have access to regular internet
Regular internet will start getting more and more expensive as compared to the non-neutral one. That is 100% given. It won't happen overnight, but it will surely happen very soon. It will come to the point where Neutral Internet will become a luxury.
And you seem to have a lot of faith on "Free Market". The principals of free market do not work when big companies gang up and people decide that they can survive with just 10 sites which other people have chosen for them, as long as it is affordable.
@For those people who think that doing away with strictly neutral net will let companies invest in infrastructure: If Net Neutrality goes, they won't even have to invest on infrastructure expansion.
In the end, it is about giving these private operators too much power.
 

superczar

Well-Known Member
Veteran
Mar 17, 2005
4,418
524
202
39
Regular internet will start getting more and more expensive as compared to the non-neutral one. That is 100% given. It won't happen overnight, but it will surely happen very soon. It will come to the point where Neutral Internet will become a luxury.
And you seem to have a lot of faith on "Free Market". The principals of free market do not work when big companies gang up and people decide that they can survive with just 10 sites which other people have chosen for them, as long as it is affordable.
Honestly, i think the current mobile internet rates in India are way too low to be sustainable
And yes, i do have a lot of faith in the free market...
coming to the mobile telephony sector, Given the sheer number of service providers , it s incredibly hard to form a real cartel
I think it is already widely known that Voda, Idea and Airtel have a loose cartel of sorts
But the sheer number of other competitors,, it is extremely extremely unlikely you will see a real oligopoly emerging here
 

dafreaking

Well-Known Member
Adept
Jun 23, 2007
1,433
142
153
Do
Honestly, i think the current mobile internet rates in India are way too low to be sustainable
And yes, i do have a lot of faith in the free market...
coming to the mobile telephony sector, Given the sheer number of service providers , it s incredibly hard to form a real cartel
I think it is already widely known that Voda, Idea and Airtel have a loose cartel of sorts
But the sheer number of other competitors,, it is extremely extremely unlikely you will see a real oligopoly emerging here
You really think they are too low?
 
  • Like
Reactions: swatkats

swatkats

Keeping TE Alive!
Veteran
Jul 16, 2011
3,795
1,623
201
Hyderabad
Honestly, i think the current mobile internet rates in India are way too low to be sustainable
And yes, i do have a lot of faith in the free market...
coming to the mobile telephony sector, Given the sheer number of service providers , it s incredibly hard to form a real cartel
You argument is really unsubstantial.
Telecom operators argue they India has one of the lowest call and data rates, having agree up on that. I would remind, that spectrum charges are also pretty much low when you compare Other countries like UK/US.
Labour is cheap, Cost of deployment is less, Power charges are less, Bandwidth charges are less for them.

Data tariff have taken almost a 150% hike, even the call and Sms charges. Beyond that, there is this Huge VAS unwanted activations still going on. So the unsustainable thing argument is just like the Indian Oil companies argument that we are loosing money but reality is Profits are in Billions $$$. What i really wanted to say is.. They just made up those artificial debts.

I think it is already widely known that Voda, Idea and Airtel have a loose cartel of sorts
But the sheer number of other competitors,, it is extremely extremely unlikely you will see a real oligopoly emerging here
Airtel, Vodafone and Idea are an Cartel. Accept it or not. Their hike in tariffs are announced one after another, while Airtel takes the lead always (check archives).
They have a common understanding of not putting fingers in other cartel member business. They have cheap bandwidth access as compare to BSNL/MTNL/AIRCEL/Uninor, They have Indus towers formed by above 3 companies, Recently they have formed a Wifi company to counter Jio.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pauldmps

superczar

Well-Known Member
Veteran
Mar 17, 2005
4,418
524
202
39
You really think they are too low?
Voice charges are probably the lowest in the world and 3G data one of the lowest , if not the lowest
Having said that, I am speaking from limited evidence from a basic sample of all the countries I have travelled to (since the first thing I do while travelling is to pick a local prepaid SIM for maps/navigation and data) - Its a limited sample but does cover high as well as low income nations

You may want to do a random sample of data rates from a few countries - Happy to be corrected if you find lower rates elsewhere

You argument is really unsubstantial.
Telecom operators argue they India has one of the lowest call and data rates, having agree up on that. I would remind, that spectrum charges are also pretty much low when you compare Other countries like UK/US.
Labour is cheap, Cost of deployment is less, Power charges are less, Bandwidth charges are less for them.
Its not a comparison against the developed world only
Labour is cheap in most of the developing world, cost of equipment is broadly the same everywhere, power charge in India are far from low (guess somewhere above the median compared to the world averages) and bandwidth in India isn't any cheaper than elsewhere (if not more)
 

baccilus

Well-Known Member
Adept
Oct 21, 2007
1,632
61
136
34
Chandigarh
@superczar : Suppose you are right in all the counts. Are you ready to give so much power and control to the private telecom operators. They will most definitely misuse that power. As I mentioned earlier, they may not do away with neutral packages, but before you realise, neutral packages will be made unaffordable.
Media use to be the 4th pillar of democracy. Now it is the Neutral Internet, simply because media has been compromised.
 

Lord Nemesis

Overlord
Veteran
Jun 3, 2005
5,935
2,403
377
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Budget-Session/liveblog/47009884.cms

Looks like we need a new campaign "Save Net neutrality from Rahul Gandhi"

As I feared, this is being unnecessary politicized and the outcome will not be good in the long run for sure. We need light weight regulation to ensure net neutrality remains for the most part, not comprehensive law that is full of loop holes to be exploited by telecom operators.
 

superczar

Well-Known Member
Veteran
Mar 17, 2005
4,418
524
202
39
@superczar : Suppose you are right in all the counts. Are you ready to give so much power and control to the private telecom operators. They will most definitely misuse that power. As I mentioned earlier, they may not do away with neutral packages, but before you realise, neutral packages will be made unaffordable.
Media use to be the 4th pillar of democracy. Now it is the Neutral Internet, simply because media has been compromised.
It's a valid point baccilus but in my view a risk worth taking because of two things - The first is what I quoted in another thread
Can't help but feel that the ongoing net neutrality debate is a classic case of elitist snobbery
Can I possibly convince my house help or driver to pay for a data plan?
vs Can I help them get on the web (albeit limited) by configuring a zero plan on their phone?
The outright benefits of a zero plan in a low income country to me far outweigh the perceived risk of a lopsided web in the future
I am afraid that most (not all) people crying hoarse about NN are doing so because they see a possible risk of increase on their own expense outlay (which is minimal to begin with)
And they are completely ignoring the benefits it brings to those who just cannot afford access to data

The second is the fact that one sector that has seen the maximum competition and is probably the freest market across all industry sectors in India is mobile telecom thus siginificantly reducing the risk of emergence of an oligopoly
 

Lord Nemesis

Overlord
Veteran
Jun 3, 2005
5,935
2,403
377
I am afraid that most (not all) people crying hoarse about NN are doing so because they see a possible risk of increase on their own expense outlay (which is minimal to begin with)
And they are completely ignoring the benefits it brings to those who just cannot afford access to data

The second is the fact that one sector that has seen the maximum competition and is probably the freest market across all industry sectors in India is mobile telecom thus significantly reducing the risk of emergence of an oligopoly
As I mentioned earlier as well, I do agree with you that many people have joined the campaign without even understanding what net neutrality is about. Most people fear about potential cost increase for themselves and hence want a net neutrality that is favourable to them than about neutrality in the truest sense.

I also agree with your point about the potential benefits of zero rated access for people who cannot afford data plans. But at the same time, we should also consider at what cost these plans are being offered. Even if its a zero cost plan for the user, there is a cost being incurred, so how is that being paid?

I don't consider Airtel Zero to be even a violation of net neutrality because they are charging money in all cases and as an operator, they are not blocking anybody from joining the program. As long as no bias from ISP side creeps in, this kind of system is fine IMO and does not violate net neutrality regardless of what the idiots over at TRAI or our stupid politicians have to say.

The internet.org program however is being controlled by facebook and they are in control of which sites are being allowed by the partner ISPs as part of the program. They are forcing the ISP to be not neutral and hence these kind of programs are in violation and its best to be not allowed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Criminal

dafreaking

Well-Known Member
Adept
Jun 23, 2007
1,433
142
153
Voice charges are probably the lowest in the world and 3G data one of the lowest , if not the lowest
Having said that, I am speaking from limited evidence from a basic sample of all the countries I have travelled to (since the first thing I do while travelling is to pick a local prepaid SIM for maps/navigation and data) - Its a limited sample but does cover high as well as low income nations

You may want to do a random sample of data rates from a few countries - Happy to be corrected if you find lower rates elsewhere
You definitely have more experience than me with this. Just look at the speeds though, also, you have to look at the relative income. Everyone says the telcos aren't profitable but they seem to be making a pretty good profit
 

superczar

Well-Known Member
Veteran
Mar 17, 2005
4,418
524
202
39
Just look at the speeds though, also, you have to look at the relative income.
Let's not mix home broadband with mobile internet, we are languishing far behind the rest of the world on the former
However on mobile data, the coverage and speeds are at par with anywhere else.. 3G is not fully reliable almost everywhere and like here, works well when it does and can be a giant PITA when it doesn't
The relative income bit is exactly why I have my contrarian viewpoint on NN
We have huge disparities in income levels, more so than most places and the low income strata here does not have the necessary disposable income to spend on niceties like internet

The strata you and i belong to have a disposable income that is not very different from the rest of the world (note the difference between absolute income which is lower here - and the disposable income left after paying for the essentials )
You also probably spend a smaller percentage of your disposable income on mobile data than say a middle class Brit or south african

Everyone says the telcos aren't profitable but they seem to be making a pretty good profit
They are in the business to make money and not for altruism
On a side note, many of the telcos are bleeding money and unless they can monetize quickly, we may see the end of true competition in the form it exists currently in this sector in India[DOUBLEPOST=1429692771][/DOUBLEPOST]
The internet.org program however is being controlled by facebook and they are in control of which sites are being allowed by the partner ISPs as part of the program. They are forcing the ISP to be not neutral and hence these kind of programs are in violation and its best to be not allowed.
Interesting - Will look that up
 
Last edited:

blr_p

Well-Known Member
Veteran
Apr 11, 2007
5,798
1,200
301
There were cases in the past where ISP's have blocked or throttled ports where there is high data usage and forced customers to subscribe to costlier plans which they claim don't have the same limitations. Till a while back, Internet was for the most part a luxury than a necessity and ISP's targeted people who used P2P/torrents to get more money. There were few other things that they did like trying to curb skype and whatsapp usage, but overall, that was the extent to which an ISP could exploit the situation at the time which they did exploit.
Consider the present pricing airtel uses. if you pay a certain amount you get a lower FUP than if you paid more. after FUP is crossed speeds can drop lower or not as low. This is a tiered offering.

I've heard of P2P throttling since 2005. Charging extra for whatsapp and skype is new. Given how fast those apps picked up i would say any throttling was low to non-existent.

Now that internet has more penetration and digital only businesses and services is on the rise, ISP's see more ways for exploitation. Basically, what I am trying to say is that even though Net neutrality did not formally exist, ISP's had limited scope for exploitation till now, but now there is scope for rampart exploitation and that is why this discussion on net neutrality has cropped up in every country. It is not like even US had formal net neutrality regulation till now right?
FCC in 2010 ruled in favour of NN and they did it again in 2015 :|

if you ask me its a bad example coming out of all places, the US. Only with dems in charge.

So if TRAI gets to rule on this i say 60-40 TRAI does what the FCC did twice (!) some win for the 'cartel' that would be.

Airtel tried to bring in plans in violation of net neutrality almost 6 months back and had to pull back after a public outcry. Others who were about to release their own plans also decided to wait. That is when I think ISPs started lobbying TRAI and when the net neutrality regulation became reality in US, the ISP's must have thought that pre-emptive strike is necessary to get rid of the notion of net neutrality though official channels before awareness spreads to enough people. Once the anti neutrality stance is accepted officially, people would have no choice in the matter.

We are living in country where things like price fixing and artificial shortage are common ploys and people have no choice. What makes you think that a official anti neutrality legislation would not be exploited. Do you think people would stop subscribing to internet because all ISP's decide to change extra for offering services that they use?
If you see avi's thread today TRAI admits there are no rules that prevent ISP's from charging for OTT services. So what do they want TRAI to do for them. If anything TRAI has taken this up because every time an ISP tries to do it something gets in the way and they have to discontinue. I've yet to put my finger on what that something is.

You are assuming that they don't have capacity and I don't buy that theory. What happens in most cases is that ISP's throttle their users so that they can oversell their capacity and make more money. This happens in India as well. From what I read somewhere, operators like Airtel and reliance have a lot of bandwidth and only 30% of their capacity is used in India. India is an exploitable market, so they do exploit and if they find more means of exploiting, they well.
Agree, oversell to balance out customer churn. Cannot guarantee customers will stick and not discontinue their subscription. I've also heard they have lots of bandwidth, but forcing more people into the same space does not lead to more customers. it allows you to to maintain profits. But better is to provide incentives that hold on to existing ones.

Assume the case where the office has the capacity required to do the work in expected 1 week timeline for the people that are coming in. So the guy is paying the 10k bribe to get the service as he would/should normally and the others are getting penalized because they are not paying the fee.
if they have the capacity then there is no need to charge extra. Govts are not for profit entities.

I have interacted with numerous govt offices. With cops at one point, when i'm explaining my case, the cop gets so many calls or interruptions that speaking for five minutes ended up taking a half hour. The only place that a bribe was required was the land registry office. Every where else i had to wait in line and be patient and was eventually attended to and usually on a cordial basis. if you follow procedure and every place has its own damn procedure the experience is positive albeit time consuming.

That is exactly what is going to happen on the internet too. If I lease 10 Gbps bandwidth for my business, The ISP won't be able to speed up the connection any more than what is possible usually on a best effort basis. I don't suddenly be able to send 30 Gbps just because I paid extra. I will still need to lease extra bandwidth in order to do that. I will not get better latency than what is possible on the network. What the ISP would do instead is penalize the entities that are not paying extra.
This is subject to what the going rate for 10Gbps is. If it turns out you need more then you get a faster connection. If they cannot provide you what you expect then you will go elsewhere to someone that can.

Please see what's happening around you in every area of business, you see this sort of business happening everywhere in India. If every ISP introduced plans where facebook is an extra on top of the internet connection. Do you think all the facebook users will stop using internet altogether? Don't forget the fact that these sort things are done in conjunction. Do you think that its only Airtel that lobbied TRAI. I would believe all the major ISPs in India would be involved and even if some didn't they would still definitely take advantage of the outcome. Do you think ISP's would even lobby for it in such a specific way if they don't intend to take full advantage of it?
But they are not charging extra for facebook , quite the contrary. As i said earlier if all you want is facebook then that is a viable option for them.

They are charging extra for messaging apps like whatsapp etc. if all you need is whatsapp then great. but if you need whatsapp AND browsing then you are paying more than you did before. Its been mentioned to use a whatsapp plan you need a 3g plan, that isn't true. If you dont have a 3g plan then base rates apply which are very high if you use browsing. But whatsapp should work at the rates specified when you paid for it.

I don't know what lobbying is going on other than to discourage introduction of policy that is detrimental or a step backward from the status quo. This means a holding operation. I would prefer policy that enables and incentivises ISPs to offer more. Only the govt can do that by reforming the present system.

I don't see a damn reason why ISP's would not be able to make money by creating service specific top-ups if its no longer a legal grey area. Internet is no longer a luxury. People have to go for it when they have no choice in the matter.
Implying more and more customers. How to handle them. If we start to treat telcos like utility companies or oil companies we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.

in a price sensitive market something will give if you increase costs over and above prevailing rates. Inflation has been tamed. But we don't see the benefits of lowered oil prices as they have been used to increase taxes on fuel. There is no consumption boom.

Ever been to a place where there is no regulation on auto/taxi fares? All the drivers would over-charge customers. Every driver will roughly ask for the same fare and nobody will come for less. They won't allow any other passing auto/taxi to pick up people and you would have no choice expect to pay what ever they ask for if you want to avail the service. If you have no other choice you will pay even if you don't like it.
They already over charge on a regular basis. but if there is choice ie supply you can always get the price you want. Its not unusual for me to ask at least 5 if not more before i settle on one. Most people give up at three attempts if they even try as much. In places where there is no choice ie less supply then you are a captive customer. This is when the over charging is guaranteed. and this is in bangalore.

Ever wondered why internet is so costly in India despite our ISPs have so much bandwidth that they also lease in other countries. That is exactly the reason.
I would like to see more basis for this have so much bandwidth assertion. You're not the only one to express this sentiment. i've heard it many times over. Never seen any proof to back it up.
 

ssslayer

Well-Known Member
Adept
Jun 30, 2006
424
132
131
Pune
I don't understand why are people getting unhappy when I am getting a chance to browse flipkart for free over Airtel.
If I want to browse Amazon, I will use the data plan.
If Airtel throttles Amazon, I will use home wifi.
If I don't have home wifi, I will move to Idea.
No telecom vendor holds a monopoly in India. And neither does any e-tailer holds a monopoly.
And definitely no one holds monopoly over how I access internet and use it.

If you feel this is unfair to a small startup competing with Flipkart. The startup is already at a disadvantage. Except a very small percentage of internet users who use google to search for business/shops, most rely only memory of advertising and word of mouth spread. The startups are already hugely disadvantaged compared to Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal and the other biggies.
If such a startup cosy up with a telecom vendor or ISP, they are effectively advertising themselves for quite cheap.
 

baccilus

Well-Known Member
Adept
Oct 21, 2007
1,632
61
136
34
Chandigarh
Suppose we accept that the Telecom companies need to earn a lot more money. So is it OK to give them power and authority to shape our Internet as they see fit. Can some one guarantee that they will not give a step motherly treatment to the Neutral Internet packs and make them a luxury?
The favorite argument of many people is that some Internet is better than no Internet. But the problem is that in order to provide that little bit of Internet to people (comprising of sites which only people other than the consumers will have the right to choose), you will end up giving telecom companies the power which they shouldn't have because they will definitely misuse it.
Let us not make this a debate about whether the telecom companies need a non-neutral Internet or not, because we really do not have full information on that subject. If you discuss about things that you do not have valid information and sources for, the discussion will just go about in circles.
We need to accept that people who control Internet are going to wield immense, unbridled power. Should that power stay with the people, the government or with the private telecom operators, whose sole aim is to maximize their profits. And please bear in mind that some things can never be undone. And because they want more revenue, their reaction is "Ohhh the eggs don't come out fast enough, lets kill the hen and have them all at once".
They bid for the spectrum. They had the numbers. They knew what they can hope to earn per person and what is their rate of growth for subscribers. They knew exactly how much they can afford to pay for the spectrum. Why is everyone trying to say that everybody miscalculated and overbid for the spectrum? Really? Thousands of crores on the line and they miscalculated?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crapmypants

baccilus

Well-Known Member
Adept
Oct 21, 2007
1,632
61
136
34
Chandigarh
If I want to browse Amazon, I will use the data plan
They will in all probability make neutral plans too expensive to buy. Why else would anyone choose the non-neutral over the neutral ones. The problem is again that private operators will have the authority to do that and no one will have a right to stop them.

If I don't have home wifi, I will move to Idea
They act like cartels now. Their price increase and decrease as a group. So do not have high hopes because of competition.

No telecom vendor holds a monopoly in India. And neither does any e-tailer holds a monopoly
Again, you underestimate the power of cartels. They set prices in consultation with each other.

I don't understand why are people getting unhappy when I am getting a chance to browse flipkart for free over Airtel.
The problem again is that you are seeing this in a very short sighted way. The fact that they will have the right to come up with plans like this gives them the power to manipulate the behavior of gullible folks like you who do not care about the big picture. And unfortunately, most people who just care about the immediate cost will be more than happy that they can browse something for free, even if it takes away their freedom. In no time, we will have a generation of people like you will will accept the whole Internet as a group of 10-15 sites. It will be really affordable and everyone will have it. The whole world wide web will be an unnecessary luxury for that generation. All this will happen because someone tried to support a harmless Internet Plan that gives some Internet to people who can't afford the whole of it. It may seem far fetched, but it will happen much faster than you can imagine. Just ask someone who had cable TV about 10 years ago when we would pay a fixed sum of money for all the channels. Now all the channels are a luxury. They take a lot of money from us, and they charge a huge cut from the TV channels too, to the extent that startup TV channels just can't survive in India any more.

If such a startup cosy up with a telecom vendor or ISP, they are effectively advertising themselves for quite cheap.
The advertisement won't remain cheap when more and more startups start cosying up to the all powerful telecom czars. They will take a hefty cut from the profit.

In all these arguments, what scares me the most is that so many people are so casual about their freedom. It is just a word for them. You feel like you will always have options. THEY WILL OWN YOUR OPTIONS !
They will make it sound sweet now because they want that power and authority. Once they have it, they will have absolutely no need to keep the deal sweet for the consumers. And their will be no way back. Many of the government schemes will be dependent on them by then and they will not think twice before using even that as a leverage against people asking for neutrality back.
 
Last edited:

ssslayer

Well-Known Member
Adept
Jun 30, 2006
424
132
131
Pune
Cartels do not work. Unless backed by violence or exclusivity.
If you feel that cartels work, then you need to speak to the Sales head of the private organizations in confidentiality to form an opinion and then pronounce judgement. All organizations, even in recession, have two major goals: increase bottom line (=higher sell price, lower cost), increase top line (=increase market share). If cartels were for real and functional no one would be able to achieve the goals. But the fact is that some do and some fail.

Your point wrong about telecom vendors colluding with the ISPs is not entirely correct. Wired ISPs don't have any licensing restrictions, therefore even you can tomorrow become an ISP. I can always check the "neutral" internet over ISPs compared to free "partial" internet delivered by Telecom vendors.

The best thing is that internet.org is operational in Indonesia. So we will come to know pretty soon if the fears are really called for.


As for the internet being a collection of 10-15 sites. It is even lesser for most of the non-tech savy people around me. They only browse for website when they either hear from someone like me or when they see/hear ads on TV/Radio or when they get spam emails.

###

As for the Govt's role in all this, first govt needs to ensure that if private players decide to clip internet, there should be a sarkari option available.
http://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_submarine_communications_cables
In this, can you identify one submarine cable landing point / gateway that is solely owned by Govt of India / BSNL?
http://asiancorrespondent.com/250/how-is-india-connected-to-the-internet/

Did anyone worry about neutrality when Airtel and Tata and Reliance invested in these submarine cables for connection to the outside world?
 
Last edited:

baccilus

Well-Known Member
Adept
Oct 21, 2007
1,632
61
136
34
Chandigarh
Indian government doesn't own the undersea cable. So it should give up net neutrality?
Even if Internet.org does work in Indonesia, are you ready to give that sort of power to the private telecom operator? They may never dare to cut down the Internet of the entire country, but they will happily start increasing the prices of the Neutral Internet till the point that it is barely affordable.
Cartels do not work. Unless backed by violence or exclusivity.
I have no idea why you think so.
Let me repeat my question: Are you ready to give that power to the Private Telecom Operators?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crapmypants

Lord Nemesis

Overlord
Veteran
Jun 3, 2005
5,935
2,403
377
As for the Govt's role in all this, first govt needs to ensure that if private players decide to clip internet, there should be a sarkari option available.
http://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_submarine_communications_cables
In this, can you identify one submarine cable landing point / gateway that is solely owned by Govt of India / BSNL?
http://asiancorrespondent.com/250/how-is-india-connected-to-the-internet/

Did anyone worry about neutrality when Airtel and Tata and Reliance invested in these submarine cables for connection to the outside world?
Oh Please... The telecom operators are already charging the customer to recover those costs. You think have invested on those lines out of charity? They would have already recovered several times of what they invested. Show me how Airtel, Tata and Reliance are not making massive revenues and profits? Any cost due to investment is part of that equation. If my company invests 10 million and make 12 million, When I tally, I would show both the expense as well as the revenue and declare that I made 2 million as profit on my investment. Usually, most of these companies bloat their expenses and under report their revenues reduce their tax burden. Despite all that, tell me is there any company out of these that is reporting less than stellar profits leave alone losses.
 

ssslayer

Well-Known Member
Adept
Jun 30, 2006
424
132
131
Pune
They would have already recovered several times of what they invested. Show me how Airtel, Tata and Reliance are not making massive revenues and profits? Any cost due to investment is part of that equation. If my company invests 10 million and make 12 million, When I tally, I would show both the expense as well as the revenue and declare that I made 2 million as profit on my investment. Usually, most of these companies bloat their expenses and under report their revenues reduce their tax burden. Despite all that, tell me is there any company out of these that is reporting less than stellar profits leave alone losses.
The problem is that you are happy with a certain way that allows them to make Rs 10. But if they come up with a way to increase internet traffic to make Rs 20, you are stopping them.

Also tomorrow if Airtel, Idea, Voda, Reliance, Tata stop making profits and close down - who will stand to gain, who will stand to lose?

I think we should come out of the idea that the seller always loots the buyer. Both find it mutually acceptable to enter the contract/deal because both stand to gain something from it.
Whenever I enter negotiations with our customers - the unique tendency seen in India is that they are very interested in knowing my cost and working out how much profit I make per unit. I seriously don't understand what difference does it make in their decision making process.
Do they feel happy when they know I make only 5% margin.
Do they feel sad when they realiaze that I make 45% margin?

Indian government doesn't own the undersea cable. So it should give up net neutrality?
Even if Internet.org does work in Indonesia, are you ready to give that sort of power to the private telecom operator? They may never dare to cut down the Internet of the entire country, but they will happily start increasing the prices of the Neutral Internet till the point that it is barely affordable.

I have no idea why you think so.
Let me repeat my question: Are you ready to give that power to the Private Telecom Operators?
Giving the power up to the private telecom operator?
We have already given up all the power to them. When they won the spectrum auctions that basically them exclusive rights and restrict anyone new from entering the game and spoiling their party!

If neutral internet is really that beneficial to me, I will continue paying the exclusive price for it. To the most of the public they will hardly care, because their usage pattern is very different from what we on tech-enclave have. It may hurt me financially, but it may benefit the majority of the public!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: superczar