yeap. i do not think we have any regulation that matches net neutrality. but this is the first time i believe that net neutrality has become relevant with the new conditions being implemented by the ISPs in the country.since our netas have bigger (!!??) issues to deal with, we have to raise it ourselves. i doubt we can get TRAI to force ISPs to comply with network neutrality... but what else we can do!
-
Amazon Deals - ToS - Like us?
Airtel Broadband Fair Usage Policy
- Thread starter igod
- Start date
- Replies 2,009
- Views 389,344
Raise a stink about contractual obligations but drop the net neutrality angle, its the weakest link after we hear all the counter arguments of course.Thats the strongest argument IMO, its 100% accurateWhy must you continue to pay for service at an agreed rate and then see it be degraded but still be obliged to pay at the former rate.
contractual obligations would not apply to new customers.and contracts have the condition that the company can change the contracts at will! tata has clearly stated that the new limits apply to all new and existing customers. and the FUP is now part of the contract... this is similar to how ICICI raised the minimum average quarterly balance for the savings account holders last year. they gave the option to the customers to close their accounts with no charges for a limited period...when it comes to contracts, we can only hope that a court would rule in favor of the customer overriding the original contract with loopholes. here we are trying to make net neutrality an aspect for the services being provided to us. it is not as big an issue for us as it might be in the US, but it would soon be.
contractual obligations would not apply to new customers.
You mean there are no more unlimited plans ?
I'm not sure what anyone can do about that.
and contracts have the condition that the company can change the contracts at will!
SOmething veb said earlier gave me hope that the consumer courts might not see it exactly this way.
tata has clearly stated that the new limits apply to all new and existing customers. and the FUP is now part of the contract...
Not tested in a court as of yet
when it comes to contracts, we can only hope that a court would rule in favor of the customer overriding the original contract with loopholes.
That's all there is, if the case is strong it wins. How to make it as strong as can be ?
here we are trying to make net neutrality an aspect for the services being provided to us. it is not as big an issue for us as it might be in the US, but it would soon be.
And i think i speak for many that this is to be applauded.
If i recall the petition as it is, does not say too much about net neutrality. It makes the case for faster connections etc which is all good.
I only saw the neutrality bit at the end, where it said 'supporters of net neutrality' or maybe that was one of the writeups after.
Look at the Comcast ruling and try to understand what they got done for.
Maybe its a case of comprehension but if you cant show that one service is degraded over others there is no argument for net neutrality.
You mean there are no more unlimited plans ?
I'm not sure what anyone can do about that.
and contracts have the condition that the company can change the contracts at will!
SOmething veb said earlier gave me hope that the consumer courts might not see it exactly this way.
tata has clearly stated that the new limits apply to all new and existing customers. and the FUP is now part of the contract...
Not tested in a court as of yet
when it comes to contracts, we can only hope that a court would rule in favor of the customer overriding the original contract with loopholes.
That's all there is, if the case is strong it wins. How to make it as strong as can be ?
here we are trying to make net neutrality an aspect for the services being provided to us. it is not as big an issue for us as it might be in the US, but it would soon be.
And i think i speak for many that this is to be applauded.
If i recall the petition as it is, does not say too much about net neutrality. It makes the case for faster connections etc which is all good.
I only saw the neutrality bit at the end, where it said 'supporters of net neutrality' or maybe that was one of the writeups after.
Look at the Comcast ruling and try to understand what they got done for.
Maybe its a case of comprehension but if you cant show that one service is degraded over others there is no argument for net neutrality.
looking at the tata FUP.... their unlimited plans are technically no more unlimited!
http://afup.broadbandforum.co/tata-indicom-fair-usage-policy-68/
as for airtel, it's going to be a challenge to get any judge to understand what exactly they have done with the FUP implementation.
as for the petition, yeah net neutrality was not kept in mind when it was originally written by vebk. i just made a section for it at a later stage.
now i think net neutrality has to become the primary focus of the petition. but changing the content of the petition now would be well... unfair to all the people who have already signed. :S
http://afup.broadbandforum.co/tata-indicom-fair-usage-policy-68/
as for airtel, it's going to be a challenge to get any judge to understand what exactly they have done with the FUP implementation.
as for the petition, yeah net neutrality was not kept in mind when it was originally written by vebk. i just made a section for it at a later stage.
now i think net neutrality has to become the primary focus of the petition. but changing the content of the petition now would be well... unfair to all the people who have already signed. :S
as for the petition, yeah net neutrality was not kept in mind when it was originally written by vebk. i just made a section for it at a later stage.
Aha, thought so, veb's part is all good.
now i think net neutrality has to become the primary focus of the petition. but changing the content of the petition now would be well... unfair to all the people who have already signed. :S
Well then we better understand exactly what neutrality is about.
Show one service is degraded over others.
As i look at the petitionthere is no mention of neutrality at all. So no change is required.
However this part is not correct.
Now, they are stopping us from using it to its full potential.
Tomorrow, they might start restricting the sites that we may visit using their networks.
Because once they start doing that then you can DO them for net neutrality.
You are accusing them of something they have not yet commited.
Everything else is good
Aha, thought so, veb's part is all good.
now i think net neutrality has to become the primary focus of the petition. but changing the content of the petition now would be well... unfair to all the people who have already signed. :S
Well then we better understand exactly what neutrality is about.
Show one service is degraded over others.
As i look at the petitionthere is no mention of neutrality at all. So no change is required.
However this part is not correct.
Now, they are stopping us from using it to its full potential.
Tomorrow, they might start restricting the sites that we may visit using their networks.
Because once they start doing that then you can DO them for net neutrality.
You are accusing them of something they have not yet commited.
Everything else is good
Is it accurate to say they tried to slow 'a particular kind of transfer' and therefore got done by the FCC ?
In my opinion irrespective of what they blocked, they reduced the speed of few users to profit others. and this is what airtel is doing, 2 users on same plans are getting different speed because one of them has bigger usuage
If an ISP is throttling any service, objective is to save bandwidth.
Actually I dont even think that they do it to profit other users because they can always buy more pipelines. They only do it to profit themselves.
That ruling on this page should be passed to trai to help them make a decision, if they are unsure how to go bout it on FUP.
Fair Access Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In my opinion irrespective of what they blocked, they reduced the speed of few users to profit others. and this is what airtel is doing, 2 users on same plans are getting different speed because one of them has bigger usuage
If an ISP is throttling any service, objective is to save bandwidth.
Actually I dont even think that they do it to profit other users because they can always buy more pipelines. They only do it to profit themselves.
That ruling on this page should be passed to trai to help them make a decision, if they are unsure how to go bout it on FUP.
Fair Access Policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In my opinion irrespective of what they blocked, they reduced the speed of few users to profit others. and this is what airtel is doing, 2 users on same plans are getting different speed because one of them has bigger usuage
So instad of 'a' service or more being degraded over others, for all.
One or more users are being degraded for the sake of others.
Then these users are being unfairly discriminated against.
Where does net neutrality come into it ?
They can still access everything but at uniformly lower speeds.
So instad of 'a' service or more being degraded over others, for all.
One or more users are being degraded for the sake of others.
Then these users are being unfairly discriminated against.
Where does net neutrality come into it ?
They can still access everything but at uniformly lower speeds.
look at the limits of higher speed connections... 384 - 70GB512 - 80GB1024 - 90GB2048 - 105GB4095 - 125GBthe more you pay, the less you get for your money