Airtel Broadband Fair Usage Policy

[blr_p]

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?

Only if no packets get to you, at all. Any packets should get to you and vice versa, hence neutral.

I thought about the contradiction, you said an ISP may prioritise VoIp packets over torrent packets. That means those packets will travel faster, implying the torrent packets are moving slower. You have no problems with this.

Therefore, how can limiting the speed mean neutrality is affected ?

Problem is that u are taking a very restricted view of net neutrality..limiting its definition interms of specific meaning of certain words..

My 'working' understanding of net neutrality is very simple, are you being blocked or not ?

Consider the tons of different providers that promise a certain speed but fall short of it. Now you will agree they are not undermining net neutrality they are just oversubscribing and not fulfilling the contract you have paid for.

This is the distinction i'm trying to make


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..

Trouble is we don't know, legally speaking, how broad or narrow the defintion is. It might be useful to cite some cases if anyone knows.

Comcast had to rollback their fair use policy but i bet it was due to breach of contract rather than on net neutrality. I don't think there are any laws out there that protect net neutrality per se.

It would appear net neutrality 'emerges' from the contracts taken out.

---------- Post added at 07:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------

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

I see the same point brought up here as well

here
This again is pricing / competition policy territory .. it is not network neutrality.

Count me in, on opposing this below – if your opposition is correctly worded and labeled.

here
This was posted to Dave Farber's IP list too - and you had at least one or two reasoned comments as to why this (bandwidth caps / usage) is not a network neutrality question, especially when there's no favoring of one competing site or application over another, everything is equally slow.

 

[cyberwiz]

Only if no packets get to you, at all. Any packets should get to you and vice versa, hence neutral.

thats means that the ISP can very easily say iam not restricting u in any way because 2 packets from youtube did reach u. SO what if the video didnt work coz i have restricted ur speed. U are not being blocked technically but i have devised a clever way of denying u the quality of service for which u are paying me.

Sorry dude but the above is a restriction on my service and amounts to blocking. so long as the reduction in speed is intentional and preventing me from using the line for purposes for which i took it in the first place.

If i could not access the site for 20 days due to severe traffic congestion due to a submarine cable cut...that is not affecting net neutrality coz its an ordinary hazard.

Its a simple case of ur taking a technical and limited view of net neutrality which basically confines itself to blocking/no blocking of services whereas i support a liberal interpretation of the term.

can a contractual violation never amount to a violation of neutrality? If i have a service degraded intentionally with the object of benefitting the ISP and which is not part of ordinary hazards and limitations accompanying every technology..i have a genuine grievance against my ISP. and i regard it as a restriction to my accessing a free medium which nobody controls.

When i am paying to connect at a particular speed to a free medium ..and u restrict my speed, there are 2 implications

1) U have violated the contract i signed with u &
2) U have indirectly stopped me from accessing certain services of the free medium. Besides, u have also stopping from putting the line to use for which took it in the 1 st place viz. 20 voip conversations at the same time.

Now if (2) doesnt fit in ur defintion of neutrality i am afraid its too narrow for me.

 

[Sushubh]

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

INTERNET NEUTRALITY.

`(a) Duty of Broadband Service Providers- With respect to any broadband service offered to the public, each broadband service provider shall--
`(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service made available via the Internet;
`(2) not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching or using any device to the network of such broadband service provider, only if such device does not physically damage or substantially degrade the use of such network by other subscribers;
`(3) provide and make available to each user information about such user's access to the Internet, and the speed, nature, and limitations of such user's broadband service;
`(4) enable any content, application, or service made available via the Internet to be offered, provided, or posted on a basis that--
`(A) is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, including with respect to quality of service, access, speed, and bandwidth;
`(B) is at least equivalent to the access, speed, quality of service, and bandwidth that such broadband service provider offers to affiliated content, applications, or services made available via the public Internet into the network of such broadband service provider; and
`(C) does not impose a charge on the basis of the type of content, applications, or services made available via the Internet into the network of such broadband service provider;
`(5) only prioritize content, applications, or services accessed by a user that is made available via the Internet within the network of such broadband service provider based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization; and
`(6) not install or utilize network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance with this section.
`(b) Certain Management and Business-Related Practices- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a broadband service provider from engaging in any activity, provided that such activity is not inconsistent with the requirements of subsection (a), including--
`(1) protecting the security of a user's computer on the network of such broadband service provider, or managing such network in a manner that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of content, application, or service;
`(2) offering directly to each user broadband service that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of content, application, or service, at different prices based on defined levels of bandwidth or the actual quantity of data flow over a user's connection;
`(3) offering consumer protection services (including parental controls for indecency or unwanted content, software for the prevention of unsolicited commercial electronic messages, or other similar capabilities), if each user is provided clear and accurate advance notice of the ability of such user to refuse or disable individually provided consumer protection capabilities;
`(4) handling breaches of the terms of service offered by such broadband service provider by a subscriber, provided that such terms of service are not inconsistent with the requirements of subsection (a); or
`(5) where otherwise required by law, to prevent any violation of Federal or State law.
`(c) Exception- Nothing in this section shall apply to any service regulated under title VI, regardless of the physical transmission facilities used to provide or transmit such service.
`(d) Stand-Alone Broadband Service- A broadband service provider shall not require a subscriber, as a condition on the purchase of any broadband service offered by such broadband service provider, to purchase any cable service, telecommunications service, or IP-enabled voice service.
`(e) Implementation- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, the Commission shall prescribe rules to implement this section that--
`(1) permit any aggrieved person to file a complaint with the Commission concerning any violation of this section; and
`(2) establish enforcement and expedited adjudicatory review procedures consistent with the objectives of this section, including the resolution of any complaint described in paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after such complaint was filed, except for good cause shown.
`(f) Enforcement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall enforce compliance with this section under title V, except that--
`(A) no forfeiture liability shall be determined under section 503(b) against any person unless such person receives the notice required by section 503(b)(3) or section 503(b)(4); and
`(B) the provisions of section 503(b)(5) shall not apply.
`(2) SPECIAL ORDERS- In addition to any other remedy provided under this Act, the Commission may issue any appropriate order, including an order directing a broadband service provider--
`(A) to pay damages to a complaining party for a violation of this section or the regulations hereunder; or
`(B) to enforce the provisions of this section.
`(g) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions shall apply:
`(1) AFFILIATED- The term `affiliated' includes--
`(A) a person that (directly or indirectly) owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with, another person; or
`(B) a person that has a contract or other arrangement with a content, applications, or service provider relating to access to or distribution of such content, applications, or service.
`(2) BROADBAND SERVICE- The term `broadband service' means a 2-way transmission that--
`(A) connects to the Internet regardless of the physical transmission facilities used; and
`(B) transmits information at an average rate of at least 200 kilobits per second in at least 1 direction.
`(3) BROADBAND SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `broadband service provider' means a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free.
`(4) IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE- The term `IP-enabled voice service' means the provision of real-time 2-way voice communications offered to the public, or such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, transmitted through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP protocol, or a successor protocol, for a fee (whether part of a bundle of services or separately) with interconnection capability such that service can originate traffic to, and terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone network.
`(5) USER- The term `user' means any residential or business subscriber who, by way of a broadband service, takes and utilizes Internet services, whether provided for a fee, in exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free.'.

 

[blr_p]

thats means that the ISP can very easily say iam not restricting u in any way because 2 packets from youtube did reach u. SO what if the video didnt work coz i have restricted ur speed. U are not being blocked technically but i have devised a clever way of denying u the quality of service for which u are paying me.

The question is are only two packets getting to you from ALL other services as well ?

If the connection had degraded to such a point and this was true, then neutrality STILL isn't affected.

BUT if you were getting MORE packets from all other services *except* your video, then neutrality has been affected


Its a simple case of ur taking a technical and limited view of net neutrality which basically confines itself to blocking/no blocking of services whereas i support a liberal interpretation of the term.

Problem is i'm not finding much support for your liberal defintion. I welcome anyone to poke more holes at this.

can a contractual violation never amount to a violation of neutrality?

Only if one or more services are treated differently ie packet transfer rate for Video and/or voip much slower in comparison to downloads & browsing.

You mention your videos not working, will you argue the same for HD movie not working on your 386kbs line ?

There is no obligation that any of your apps work to begin with. All they agree to is to give you this much speed, if they subsequently limit this speed on everything then you have a contractual issue.


If i have a service degraded intentionally with the object of benefitting the ISP and which is not part of ordinary hazards and limitations accompanying every technology..i have a genuine grievance against my ISP. and i regard it as a restriction to my accessing a free medium which nobody controls.

When i am paying to connect at a particular speed to a free medium ..and u restrict my speed, there are 2 implications

1) U have violated the contract i signed with u &
2) U have indirectly stopped me from accessing certain services of the free medium. Besides, u have also stopping from putting the line to use for which took it in the 1 st place viz. 20 voip conversations at the same time.

Now if (2) doesnt fit in ur defintion of neutrality i am afraid its too narrow for me.

If you want to argue on a contractual basis then no one will oppose. Its early days still , but i think we have got to get the definitions right if we are to be taken seriously at all.

I am not trying to blunt your arguments, on the contrary i would like to sharpen them

 

[cyberwiz]

there again 100's of rebuttals that i can give..u will give more in return..this can go on..no point wasting time..u keep urs..i keep mine..let people believe whichever one they want to.

 

[blr_p]

Not like that, we are not talking about meta-physics here are we

Look at the defintion above and say whether it negates what I have said cos i dont think it does.

Let's look at this comcast ruling now.

According to an article in THE WEEK in August, 2008, a case against Comcast was decided by the FCC in favor of no fair access policies allowed.

No to Internet rationing (copied from THE WEEK, August 2, 2008) Internet service providers cannot ration service to heavy users of the Internet, the Federal Communications Commission ruled this week. The FCC said that Comcast, one of the largest Internet service providers, broke the law when it slowed the transfer of video files among a group of its customers to ensure that other customers had adequate bandwidth. The FCC ruled that Comcast had no right to act as Internet traffic cop.

Is it accurate to say they tried to slow 'a particular kind of transfer' and therefore got done by the FCC ?

Everything else worked ok just the transfer of video files hence violation of net neutrality.

Now if Airtel did the same, only limit torrent traffic then you could claim the same.

But thats not what Airtel is doing now is it

 

[dishwara]

I applied for a 256kbps Unlimited connection for 24X7/month.I need a 256kbps Unlimited connection for 24X7/month.

 

[Sushubh]

with airtel, you would need to go for the 512kbps connection to ensure you get 256kbps for the entire month.

 

[cyberwiz]

Not like that, we are not talking about meta-physics here are we


precisely..its not meta-physics hence doesnt merit such a lot of discussion.

 

[blr_p]

Well if you make a case about net neutrality and lose then neutrality will be affected right away. This is the danger.Do we have any rules in this country that protect net neutrality ?