I will Agree with you on this
But Small ISP also has the Right to Get Domestic bandwidth Cheaper, NIXI is Responsible in this Case?
No, NIXI is only responsible for peering. ISPs still have to pull their own fibre in to a NIXI datacentre or lease it from someone else. The problem is that everyone who has domestic fibre thinks it's a golden cow that needs a helluvalot of milking, and they try to charge WAY more than it's worth - even Railtel is guilty of this (yes, I have an anecdote but I won't bore you with it right now). Of course, they aren't the only ones that are guilty of this - even if I wanted to lease like 1km of point to point fibre in Mumbai it's like this - they charge 5 lakhs where it only needs to be 50k, and the value of the cable itself, including the word required at either end is only 25k.
and Now also the cost is increasing for mobile internet ..All players have increased cost almost by 25% for old crappy 2G data package and 3G lying almost dead from 3 years ...regarding 4G LTE , reliance is late by almost 1 year and except failtel no one has launched 4G services and wired broadband is idle as of now ..
Well...
1. Government Policy has been and continues to push all forms of wireless as a "fix all solution" for Indian broadband, and whoever is writing this policy doesn't know anything about wireless technology.
2. It's REALLY HARD to attract investors if you want to build cables. If my primary focus was wireless, I'd have 10x as much money to spend, but instead I had to fight tooth and nail for what we have so far, and even that's not nearly as much as I'd like. Unfortunately, if I'd taken that path, I'd be like Tikona. Fortunately, non-Indian investors understand that fibre isn't just for backhaul.
3. 3G prices are coming down dramatically, what are you talking about?
4. 4G... yeah, sorta with you on that.
People in this country need to leverage the WiFi spectrum.
acceptablly fast provided someone can deploy hotspots at the right place.
And you do not need any voice network and a lot less cables.
Indian law
as it is makes this proposition very difficult. That is all.
Current ISPs still have 256Kbps plan. First thing which should be done is get rid of 256Kbps and 512Kbps plans. 1Mbps should be the new minimum.
1Mbps unlimited around 400-500 bucks pm. A 2Mbps unlimited for around 700 pm. After FUP, the speed should not drop below 1Mbps as that the new minimum.
These are the changes which have to be mandated.
1mbit/s isn't even the minimum in most first world countries. Some first world countries still drop you to 64k or 128k - and not from 2mbit/s or 4mbit/s but from 10, 20 or even 100mbit/s... so, while I don't agree with the dropping of speeds at all, you should consider yourself lucky that you even get 256k.
IF ANYTHING, FUPs simply need to be more fair and reasonable, and plans should be easier to figure out. 20-60GB is fine for an average user, but don't top out at 150 or 175GB and not give me the choice to opt for a higher plan. Even an ISP in Oman has plans with an FUP of 1000GB.
As for your pricing... You can think what you like, doesn't mean it's going to happen. I think you guys don't take in to account the fixed costs involved when you dream these up. There *has* to be a lower limit to cover all the equipment, support costs and other stuff like licensing, but instead it *appears* to have no appreciable value - the expectation is that because wholesale bandwidth costs came down, the price of broadband should go down accordingly, but, I think that you're looking at it from the wrong perspective... let me explain below:
^ We thought Bandwidth Prices Came down but Again that TATA went to court and Bought Stay. Hehe who would keep quiet if they loose 90% of their earlier Revenue.
I agree. The minimum Speed should be 1mbps unlimited not 256kbps or 512kbps after FUP.
Instead of saying that 1mbit/s should be cheaper (because I assume you've read that the wholesale price per megabit has come down), why not demand more megabits for your money? That is to say, now that the wholesale price per megabit has dropped by say 75% in 3 years or whatever, give me 4mbit/s for 1k instead of 1mbit/s for 1k.
It's this race to the bottom, this thinking that 256k/512k/1mbit services should now be available for 200, 300, 500 bucks as opposed to like 400, 600, 1000 that's holding you back. If you did the same thing with, say, CPUs, everyone would still be buying Pentium II processors because they only cost $10 instead of $200... instead, it should be price such that the price stays the same, but the specification goes up.
Demand more for your money.
I kind of agree with ShawnZer. Most people complaining about broadband download illegally using torrent. I think we might get better Broadband plans if these freeloaders stop downloading stuff which is not meant to be free. At this point if we get better plans then obviously these people will download more. That's why it is better, in a way, that we get shitty plans.
1. That's not my experience. When you give people more speed, their usage doesn't go up by the same percentage as the speed does. I mean, it might when you go from 256k to 512k or whatever in small jumps, but once you get over the 10mbit/s hump, it begins to matter a whole lot less, and once you hit about 30-40mbit/s, it actually becomes quite difficult to keep up - you can download content WAY faster than you can watch it.
As an experiment, I put a small number of users on unlimited 100mbit/s accounts about 6 months ago (without telling them) and their usage only went up by single-digit percentages. Maybe they downloaded a couple of extra torrents, but it certainly wasn't 10x the usage (I'd given them 10x the speed that they were supposed to have).
But that could easily be fixed with decent FUPs - arbitrarily if we said, say, 10GB per mbit/s, this could be acceptable, so if you're on a 10mbit/s plan you get a 100GB FUP but if you're on a 100mbit/s plan you get a 1000GB FUP. And let's be honest, you are going to have a hard time consuming all 1000GB every single month - even between 3 or 4 people it's not so easy (and yes, I know, you *could* download 25GB Blu-Ray ISOs but, that would be stupid and wasteful since most people wouldn't be watching stuff on a shiny 50" LCD or LED)... and then where are you going to store all those 25GB images...? Seems like getting a 2-4GB x264 version would be a better choice then you're looking at 1 movie a day and still barely topping 250GB a month... make sense?
2. There is also a legality problem in India. DECENT legal streaming/download services just aren't available. And don't even mention BigFlix, I did use the modifier "decent", after all, and the non-Indian content selection is abysmal... And Hollywood literally isn't interested in licensing stuff to certain countries - I've been working with someone in America for just on a whole year now trying to get some good content to be distributed legally, but, in India we don't have Spotify, Hulu, Pandora, Netflix, none of the channels have anything like BBC iPlayer or TVNZ on Demand...
mgcarley: Noticed any difference in latency? Impressive, huh?
Latency for what? If you're talking about 4G/LTE, then no. Even within the same city it was definitively **un**impressive, and that wasn't even in India. In India what I've seen is downright ghastly.
