Airtel Broadband Fair Usage Policy

[Checksum]

When is this petition going to be forwarded to the relevant authorities?

 

[blr_p]

I'd say its down to demand, more than anything, they get hit far harder in the south than elsewhere.

 

[blr_p]

Cyberwiz

Decided to test your definition of net neutrality as stated by you here, and was given this reply.

What do you say ?

Seems your defintion of 'restriction' might be overly broad and may not apply wrt to FUP.

Net Neutral is *not* preferring one over the other. So long as you are not denied access there is no neutrality being lost.

Reduction in speed is not the same as being denied access.

 

[kreacher1]

Would writing to MRTPC MCA21::About Us:Contact Us or

Consumer Online Resources & Empowerment Centre help in any way?

 

[Checksum]

City: ChennaiPlan : 448kbps UnlimitedApplicable: DoubtfulThe reason why I've specified as doubtful is that last billing cycle the speeds were decreased to around 340kbps (not 256) but that was for only a few days. It resumed back to normal speeds around 23 of Feb, before my billing cycle ends. And this billing cycle, I've downloaded more than 35 GB, but still the limit has not been applied. Also, I didn't receive any notification about the FUP with my bill or mail.

 

[cyberwiz]

Cyberwiz

Decided to test your definition of net neutrality as stated by you here, and was given this reply.

What do you say ?


Mr Krool seems to consider himself extremely smart rubbishing anything that doesnt fit in his head.

Anyways, before writing the definition i had stated that its a very simple/basic/broad definition just to give an outline coz in the posts previous to mine there was some confusion regarding net neutrality.

I'll give an e.g. here to illustrate what i was trying to say. I specifically took the airtel 384 Kbps plan to view streaming videos from a particular site which dont run at 256 K . Now when why speed is reduced to 256 K ..am i not being restricted from what i want to do with my network connection in as much as i can no longer watch my favourite videos ?..Its a blanket block on a service albeit in an indirect way akin to port blocking...I think this amounts to a restriction and is against net neutrality.

Also, what he says at the end of his post

quote
And the third point contradicts the first - unless you have a leased line, a fair use policy must be enforced to ensure reliability -
unquote

shows a lack of understanding of how networks work.An illustration to substantiate my argument will show that there is no contradiction b/w the 1st and 3rd point

Valid Traffic shaping :
Assuming 25 users on a network. say some 20 are using Bitorrent and maxing out their connections saturating the Upstream circuit to ISP backbone. Now 5 out these 25 users are trying to make VoIP calls for which ping time is critical. Now the ISP applies traffic shaping protocols to delay certain requests sent by Bitorrent users to the gateway and give priority tags to VoIP packets so that the application for which latency is crtitical can function smoothly over those where ping times are not so important. This is a valid use of traffic shaping for stability of network. When the ISP applies traffic shaping in a restrictive sense for eg not delaying but dropping the bittorrent packets to create time-outs for the bitorrent user..would imply restrictions going against neutrality. FUP interms of download caps and genuine traffic shaping for stability are two different things how can one equate the two. We have always had traffic shaping on airtel but not download caps. so how does my third point contradict the first? or the definition?

Moreover, his post also betrays a myopic view of not only net neutrality but also others peoples opinions for eg he says

quote
"According to the definition above, every ISP in the world is violating it left right and center because they don't provide their customers 1 Gbps connections (only 5 Mbps, OMG they are capping speeds!)."
unquote

My defintion implies the ISP deviating from what iam entitled to ie a free net at a particlular speed for which iam paying the price which the ISP has determined. For eg If i take a 2 KW connection for electrical load of my house, i take it coz i need that much. If iam not getting the 2 KW or there are frequent disruptions, i have a case against the electricity supplier. To suggest that the Supplier is commiting a fraud on me by not giving me 10 KW instead of 2 KW which i am paying for (as is the implication of the statement quoted above) is absurd to say the least.

I would appreciate if u dont cross link my posts especially on another forum. I have posted my opinon and people are welcome to agree with it or reject it..thats their viewpoint..i dont intend to justify my views any further.

 

[iChaitanya]

Have got my connections cancelled citing reasons of AFUP and now have been recieving call from Airtel since last 3 days to keep the connection active but move to a higher plan where the speed will not be restricted.

Anyways have asked them to cancel. Got a tata wimax in bangalore and so far it has been good.

You should have told them that you'll keep the connection only on one condidion: No limits. Deactivate AFPU for my number or I quit. That's the way it's gonna work.

 

[blr_p]

I'll give an e.g. here to illustrate what i was trying to say. I specifically took the airtel 384 Kbps plan to view streaming videos from a particular site which dont run at 256 K . Now when why speed is reduced to 256 K ..am i not being restricted from what i want to do with my network connection in as much as i can no longer watch my favourite videos ?..Its a blanket block on a service albeit in an indirect way akin to port blocking...I think this amounts to a restriction and is against net neutrality.

You are using the word 'restricted', what happens if you substitute with 'blocked'

...that you are not being 'blocked' from your videos ie you can still access them. That is the main point.

It's not the same as Port blocking because you cannot access those ports ...period!

True that you now have a downgraded exeprience but isn't this more of a contractual issue ?

That you paid to get 384kbs and now only receiving 256kbs.

Airtel to my knowledge has not 'blocked' anyone or any protocol from interacting on their network. And if so then net neutrality is not being affected.

I think its important not to confuse the two concepts here.

the word 'restricted' blurs the boundaries

 

[cyberwiz]

Well sticking to the specific eg..what happens when the video just wont load at 256 K or buffers for unltd prd of time? does it not amount to a blanket block?Problem is that u are taking a very restricted view of net neutrality..limiting its definition interms of specific meaning of certain words. If u analyse the definition given by founder of the net in the video posted in this thread u would realise that its a very broad definition in conformity with what i have posted.. for me restriction and blanket block both affect net neutrality..

 

[vishalrao]

its being discussed on other lists now too, not sure for how long tho: india-gii - India's bumpy progress on the global infohighway - arc_protect