Why are you concerned with how much AIB makes from this video?
Apparently, they have a huge reach and they have helped trend this issue and spread the message.
[#netneutrality] AIB's video: Save The Internet
- Thread starter Spacescreamer
- Start date
- Status
Why are you concerned with how much AIB makes from this video?
Apparently, they have a huge reach and they have helped trend this issue and spread the message.
More like they are doing it to save their own asses from the potential fallout of anti-neutrality legislation. Its not much different from how a few politicians who don't know jack about net neutrally are still rallying to garner support of the people through this activism.
Lets face it, most people even on these forums wound't care about net neutrality if its impact is never going to come down to them in the long run. You are going to be impacted, that's why you care.
I couldn't agree anymore. Even after my request in this thread to the Mods of this forum, They did not even bother to reply.
Point being that many people are not standing for it because its a good cause, but because its going to impact them. Standing for equality is different and much more difficult than standing for a cause out of selfishness. What I observed is that currently, for majority of public ( especially the not so highly tech savvy public) that is opposing anti-neutrality regulations, their sole understanding of the neutrality business is limited to thinking that they stand to loose something in the long run which is why they are opposing it. So, are they supporting net neutrality because asking for equality is a good cause or because otherwise, they are going to have to pay more in future?
For example, If the govt wants to make it mandatory for all ISPs to provide access to certain popular social media sites for free. Would the people whose sole need for internet is those very social media sites still stand for equality and oppose such move by govt?
When somebody is standing for a cause out of selfishness, they wouldn't mind if its unfair to others as long as it benefits them.
Not that the support itself is not useful when its a cause that benefits many, but its still no more different than politicians who support "good causes" for gaining vote banks or for filling their own coffers.
Let me tell a story that I read somewhere. A guy noticed that his servant who used to go regularly to some communist meetings about social and economic equality suddenly stopped going. He got curious and asked the servant about it. The servant says that in of of the meetings, they told everybody how their principles of equal sharing works that if everyone is given a equal share of money, each and everyone would get Rs 3000. But he was getting paid Rs 5000. So, if he supported their cause for equality, he stands to lose Rs 2000. So he stopped going because he no longer wanted to support their cause. Now, had he been only getting Rs 2000, he would have continued going and may be even rallied more people to support the "good cause".
When the British were subjugated the locals tribes in Africa with excessive force (using guns and cannons to against tribal with bows and arrows), Gandhi supported the British with racist ramblings about how the blacks need to be subjugated. When he was he given a serving of the same dish, he started taking about equality and Independence.
cellar_door
Galvanizer
This is such a facile argument that its almost laughably childish.
People fight for the things that affect them. Bravo for pointing that out. Since you have a exceptional grasp of the obvious maybe you could next tell us that water is wet. Or that fire is hot.
They fight because this is a good cause to them.
Here is an equally bland question for you. What is a "good cause"? By whose standards do you define that? Yours? Societal? There is no objectively "good cause". The terrorists that blow up buildings would argue that its in a good cause. As do the doctors that volunteer with Medecins Sans Frontieres. A good cause to any individual is what you identify with. These people identify with net neutrality, so its a good cause to them.
What an utterly asinine way to look at things. I would call it nihilistic but that would actually give make it sound smarter than it is. Its more like a apathetic teenagers rambling which can be summed up in one banal sentence "People are selfish". Congratulations on that break through realization Mandeville.
Last edited:
It's pretty harsh..
He meant, for example :
Indian farmers (single largest occupation of India) are as much concerned about net neutrality as much as Members of this forum are concerned about Farmer suicides..
We are not United on any account and we deserve such politicians and leaders. Today net neutrality is being sold, tomorrow something else that belongs to people of India. We Armchair activists need to address universal issues instead of issues affecting only us.
Update : luckily TRAI has got 2 lakh emails in a day and they're probably going to rule in favour of net neutrality; According to TOI headlines.
Failtel & Flopkart beware.
cellar_door
Galvanizer
Why should we be united on everything? That is unrealistic to expect. People have different needs and priorities. Its not whats being "sold". Its whatever people find that affects them at a given moment.
If tomorrow the electricity at your house gets cut off, is it reasonable for me to expect you to care about farmer suicides or any other "universal issue" as much as you care about getting the lights back on?
The whole idea of "we should ALL care equally about everything" is totally unattached to reality and borderline delusional. And spewing apathy on the internet is kinda worse. If your argument for or against something boils down to "yeah why should we do this when there are starving kids in XYZ place" then you really have no argument. Sorry.
Its easy to be cynical. Takes no work. Takes no effort. Well, aside from the effort of typing a post on TE.
Why should we be united on everything? That is unrealistic to expect. People have different needs and priorities. Its not whats being "sold". Its whatever people find that affects them at a given moment.
If tomorrow the electricity at your house gets cut off, is it reasonable for me to expect you to care about farmer suicides or any other "universal issue" as much as you care about getting the lights back on?
The whole idea of "we should ALL care equally about everything" is totally unattached to reality and borderline delusional. And spewing apathy on the internet is kinda worse. If your argument for or against something boils down to "yeah why should we do this when there are starving kids in XYZ place" then you really have no argument. Sorry.
Its easy to be cynical. Takes no work. Takes no effort. Well, aside from the effort of typing a post on TE.
This is the attitude and reason why we are like this; we're not bothered about anything else. This apathy for anything other than me and myself is detrimental.
But luckily my friend this country is changing and people have understood the problems of a non participation in a democracy. We are moving towards a participatory democracy and it's a healthy trend.
For example take Nirbhaya or Jessica Lal case ; many of those who protested didn't have anything to do with it personally.
Else why would men protest against a government apathy for a barbaric rape. Why would people in Bangalore support a agitation based in Delhi? If everyone thought as you would, nothing could've been achieved.
Silent observers of a crime are equally responsible as the criminal himself.
BTW : the electricity example is too pediatric to say the least. At least take a broader example even for comparison sake, say electricity of whole city ?? But this is the kind example what I would expect from self centered thinking.
That is the exact utterly stupid way of thinking and idiotic mindset that I was trying to point out if you didn't get it Captain Obvious.
When people try to support "good causes" thinking of their own benefits, in their short short, they fail to think about or foresee the long term repercussions. As you yourself said, even a terrorist, serial killer or rapist will also have their own well defined "good causes" for their actions in their own minds and there has rarely been one that has regretted his "good deeds" but the society will still see them as bad people because their actions have caused harm.
The extent of damage that can be caused by anti-neutrality legislations is very very large and let me assure you that its not even going to be limited to the on line repercussions. People who till this day have nothing to do with internet are also going to see the impact in the long term.
Right now people are looking at the short and midterm consequences for themselves and merely trying to defend net neutrality as a cause that is going to help them without having any real understanding of it. People with such mindsets can easily sway away from the cause or arrive at a compromise that is harmful in the long run when a short term benefit is thrown at them. They won't care if its going to the harm others and they won't realize that the long repercussions are going to come back to them.
Don't blindly support net neutrality for the heck of it. People should understand what it is about before standing and walking the mile for it. Don't support it as knee jerk reaction to the questionnaire from TRAI. Don't support it because AIB or some other entity is rallying for it because they happened to have some vested interest in supporting it. They will just as easily ask you to fight against net neutrality if its going to be beneficial to them. It is very easy to make people fall into a ditch when they are running blindfolded. Understand and agree with yourself what is acceptable to you and what is not and then stand for it. There is nothing wrong about being selfish either. But at the very least put some effort into understanding the cause before you support it.
Out of the 2 Lac respondents (which is utterly small number IMO not to mention that there are people who have sent responses from 5 to 10 email ids), how many people have actually answered the TRAI's questionnaire with your own logic, examples and understanding rather than blindly pasting somebody else's opinion that is available on savetheinternet.in and then sending it from all the email ids that they have. How many have at least read through the arguments and attempted to customize the answers to their liking before sending a response?
Jasku
Herald
Flipkart has pulled out of the airtel zero deal.
@Lord Nemesis what is your point with respect to net neutrality, do you think regulation is good for the longer run, please do tell.
@Lord Nemesis what is your point with respect to net neutrality, do you think regulation is good for the longer run, please do tell.
Last edited:
Any regulation by Govt on this matter should be to only ensure that the ISP's stick to the general definition of net neutrality and not to arm twist them into making unfavourable exceptions even if its in favour of end users or service providers
All bytes should be treated equally and ISP should transmit a byte as long as somebody is covering the bandwidth and connectivity costs and that is covered as part of the bandwidth purchase by the service provider and the internet subscription by the end user. All their inter network connectivity costs are being covered as part of the costs paid by the service provider and the end user. There is no reason to demand for extra charges or treat the bytes of a service provider differently than others.
Through such an inter network connectivity arrangement, the ISP has already agreed for transfer of bytes between the two networks. It is a mutually agreed upon and profitable relationship between the two network operators, so the ISP cannot go and ask a service provider on the other network to pay them a fee for sending packets through his network since he is already paying the connectivity and bandwidth costs to his source network provider nor ask the customer on his side to pay an additional fee on top of the cost of the internet subscription for giving him the "privilege" of allowing a service provider on another network. These are all implicit with the arrangement. The ISP is at this own discretion to choose not to have inter connectivity relationships at the risk to their own business. There is no justification for an ISP to say that a service provider is choking their network because that simply means that the ISP has a problem in his network.
Regarding Airtel Zero kind of programs, in the purest form, they are not really a violation of net neutrality IMO since the ISP is still collecting the cost of the bandwidth regardless of the service with the only difference being who is paying the cost. However there are couple of concerns with such programs.
1. Such programs may lead to potential violation of the neutrality in future, but that is possible only when a operator has sufficient incentive to degrade the performance of non participating service providers. With proper neutrality measures in place, even if a service provider is willing to cover the cost of bandwidth for their customers, there would be no incentive for the operators themselves to show bias. If that cannot be achieved, then these kind of programs should not be allowed.
2. The anti-competitive aspects of it. If Flipkart is free on Airtel, A user might be compelled to use Flipkart over Amazon or snapdeal and Airtel over Vodaphone or other operators. This however is still no different from similar kind of practices in offline businesses and should be treated the same as those and there is no need to tie Net neutrality with that. If there is a need for legislation on what constitutes anti-competitive business practices and how to deal with it, it should be kept separate from the core of net neutrality.
redhotiron2004
Forerunner
What the heck... You are saying something on the first para then you yourself are opposing it in the 2 points that you wrote.
I tell you what, the legislations, cases, rules, bills etc take a long time in India. And those rules are mostly in favor of the one that have money to spend. You are being so naive in your assumption that those telecom companies would protect your interests once they get there way.
In case whatever you said is implemented then I have no doubt that the telecom companies would use this loophole to there advantage. And you or anybody else won't be able to do anything about that. We all know how bad FUP is.
Do you know who introduced that?
Your loving airtel did.
We all know it's wrong. There is no such thing in foreign countries. But, just because of pure greed and power nobody including you could stop airtel from implementing that.
Looking at there track records, why should the situation be allowed to get out of our hands?
I don't trust the telecom companies. I dont want them to tell me what to use and what not. I want to take that decision myself. I want to keep it simple. I don't want to give a single extra penny to those thugs.
Flipkart went back on its decession to support airtel. They did it for a reason. It's because they knew it was wrong in the long term.
If the telecom companies are so concerned about providing its consumers cheap or low cost internet. Then just reduce the price of your ridiculous internet plans. And improve your pathetic speed for everything. That set.
Why should I give even a single penny extra for those shitty services provided by the telecom operators?
The OTT players earn money because they have made the product or app. And the users are buying the bandwidth or internet plan from there own money to access those apps. So, what's the problem with it?
The telecom operators are getting paid for the internet or data already. Just because of greed or because of gullible people like you who are willing to beleive them, I am not ready to take the risk. Nor I need too.
And yes I don't care about people sleeping hungry on roads. For that the government is there. We pay huge taxes to them. They need to do there work. For you I can't just being those hungry poor people home and start to take care of them.
Be practical. Everybody does what is right for him or his family. And I dont see anything right in what airtel is trying to do.
avi
Keymaster
redhotiron2004
Forerunner
redhotiron2004
Forerunner
Contries like? Do they also have true unlimited plans?
Fup is not a very old phenomenon. It was introduced in India by airtel only. After which all other operators follow suit. Before that unlimited plans were really unlimited without any caps.
Bandwidth limiters were used in the beginning in countries like USA at huge margins like 50-100GB etc.
Here airtel introduced 5GB, 10GB limits and named it FUP. Even my present plan have 10GB FUP limit and is termed unlimited by airtel.
These cannot be compared to USA.
100GB is still pretty good. And then too those countries like USA have true unlimited plans as well unlike airtel India. You would be hard pressed to find a FUP less plan thanks to airtel.
- Status