Airtel is big f***ers. They are investing in submarine cable for another country.
- Thread starter acc1444
- Start date
- Replies 53
- Views 20,243
I disagree. The Internet could be immensely profitable to private players if it was administered properly. But this fad of 256-512k service is kinda old now and with everyone wanting unlimited this and that means most of the players are struggling to deliver something that's any good. Which is why we're not planning to fall in to this trap of uber-cheap service.
By adminstered I meant the way the govt does it or is that the wrong way to put it. Or is it once its given out to private players then its upto them to do as they see fit, the govt has no more role to play. The networks are private after the license is granted.
You won't fall into a trap of cheap service because all you have to do is deliver an improvement over the status quo, which is quite mediocre to begin with. That will be your USP.
Agreed, but the regulatory framework is a double-edged sword - it's certainly not helping other players bring in faster services (at least not without serious restrictions on FUP and so forth) and so the providers seem from many vantage points happy to coast along with the bare minimum of service.
Its not clear what you're saying here to me.
Are you saying the existing regulatory framework discourages players from offering faster services ?
Of course not, but do you think Billionaires like paying tax any more than the common man? Once abroad, it stays abroad, whether it ends up back in the company or in the personal fortunes of the head honchos, and this is what I mean by the rich getting richer and the benefits of new investments not filtering down to affect "normal" people.
So there is no difference in how things are with this anywhere in the world then. Sure you can tax the rich even more to make up for it but that only aggravates the situation more.
If you want the rich to keep their money in the country or invest more in it then there have to appropriate incentives. Otherwise it will always go to where it nets the best return.
By adminstered I meant the way the govt does it or is that the wrong way to put it. Or is it once its given out to private players then its upto them to do as they see fit, the govt has no more role to play. The networks are private after the license is granted.
You won't fall into a trap of cheap service because all you have to do is deliver an improvement over the status quo, which is quite mediocre to begin with. That will be your USP.
Agreed, but the regulatory framework is a double-edged sword - it's certainly not helping other players bring in faster services (at least not without serious restrictions on FUP and so forth) and so the providers seem from many vantage points happy to coast along with the bare minimum of service.
Its not clear what you're saying here to me.
Are you saying the existing regulatory framework discourages players from offering faster services ?
Of course not, but do you think Billionaires like paying tax any more than the common man? Once abroad, it stays abroad, whether it ends up back in the company or in the personal fortunes of the head honchos, and this is what I mean by the rich getting richer and the benefits of new investments not filtering down to affect "normal" people.
So there is no difference in how things are with this anywhere in the world then. Sure you can tax the rich even more to make up for it but that only aggravates the situation more.
If you want the rich to keep their money in the country or invest more in it then there have to appropriate incentives. Otherwise it will always go to where it nets the best return.
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
By adminstered I meant the way the govt does it or is that the wrong way to put it. Or is it once its given out to private players then its upto them to do as they see fit, the govt has no more role to play. The networks are private after the license is granted.
A bit of both. Most of the operators have their own networks. I'm more in to open networks. Ideally, Hayai's network should be open access to any player who wants to pay us for wholesale access.
You won't fall into a trap of cheap service because all you have to do is deliver an improvement over the status quo, which is quite mediocre to begin with. That will be your USP.
Indeed. It's a fairly strong USP but we're still out of reach of the masses. Although this isn't entirely a bad thing. If everyone drives a Mercedes, then Tata has no market
Its not clear what you're saying here to me.
Are you saying the existing regulatory framework discourages players from offering faster services ?
Discourages is probably the wrong word to use. More like there is no incentive. The thinking is "do the bare minimum, and we'll leave you alone".
But ISPs in India need to start thinking differently - I'll be meeting with this guy in Malaysia in a bit over a week because I like his way of thinking: Broadband Conference 2011 - City Telecom: "You will never win a war by leasing your 'weapon' from your opponent"
Officially, there's nothing that encourages providers to provide better/faster services. There's no good reason to peer at NIXI. There's no incentive to co-operate with competitors (peering, infrastructure, etc). The prices consumers pay per MB/GB are ridiculous - this could use some serious regulation.
The regulations are not keeping up with the pace of change. The wholesale ceiling tariff is still at 2.99Cr/year/STM, even though it's possible to get lower, this too needs to be updated so that ISPs are able and/or forced to purchase more bandwidth and improve speeds.
And instead of worrying about stupid things such as contention ratios (a flawed measurement, since it can be measured at several points in the network and made to be most favourable to the ISP), perhaps a minimum quality of service per subscriber to the DSLAM or CMTS or OLT (on the opposite side of the DSLAM/etc to where the 256k minimum regulation currently is), and the measurement of service being in near real-time rather than every 15 minutes or whatever.
I personally would still like to see ISPs simply stop worrying about 256k minimums and open up the taps with data plans - or at least provide such an option to consumers at a reasonable price.
So there is no difference in how things are with this anywhere in the world then. Sure you can tax the rich even more to make up for it but that only aggravates the situation more.
If you want the rich to keep their money in the country or invest more in it then there have to appropriate incentives. Otherwise it will always go to where it nets the best return.
So there needs to be some kind of incentive to invest in India. But even that side of the regulatory framework is cumbersome and restrictive. And there isn't much incentive for foreign investors, either: all the money I've (personally) put in to Hayai so far? I'm not even allowed to repatriate that.
A bit of both. Most of the operators have their own networks. I'm more in to open networks. Ideally, Hayai's network should be open access to any player who wants to pay us for wholesale access.
You won't fall into a trap of cheap service because all you have to do is deliver an improvement over the status quo, which is quite mediocre to begin with. That will be your USP.
Indeed. It's a fairly strong USP but we're still out of reach of the masses. Although this isn't entirely a bad thing. If everyone drives a Mercedes, then Tata has no market
Its not clear what you're saying here to me.
Are you saying the existing regulatory framework discourages players from offering faster services ?
Discourages is probably the wrong word to use. More like there is no incentive. The thinking is "do the bare minimum, and we'll leave you alone".
But ISPs in India need to start thinking differently - I'll be meeting with this guy in Malaysia in a bit over a week because I like his way of thinking: Broadband Conference 2011 - City Telecom: "You will never win a war by leasing your 'weapon' from your opponent"
Officially, there's nothing that encourages providers to provide better/faster services. There's no good reason to peer at NIXI. There's no incentive to co-operate with competitors (peering, infrastructure, etc). The prices consumers pay per MB/GB are ridiculous - this could use some serious regulation.
The regulations are not keeping up with the pace of change. The wholesale ceiling tariff is still at 2.99Cr/year/STM, even though it's possible to get lower, this too needs to be updated so that ISPs are able and/or forced to purchase more bandwidth and improve speeds.
And instead of worrying about stupid things such as contention ratios (a flawed measurement, since it can be measured at several points in the network and made to be most favourable to the ISP), perhaps a minimum quality of service per subscriber to the DSLAM or CMTS or OLT (on the opposite side of the DSLAM/etc to where the 256k minimum regulation currently is), and the measurement of service being in near real-time rather than every 15 minutes or whatever.
I personally would still like to see ISPs simply stop worrying about 256k minimums and open up the taps with data plans - or at least provide such an option to consumers at a reasonable price.
So there is no difference in how things are with this anywhere in the world then. Sure you can tax the rich even more to make up for it but that only aggravates the situation more.
If you want the rich to keep their money in the country or invest more in it then there have to appropriate incentives. Otherwise it will always go to where it nets the best return.
So there needs to be some kind of incentive to invest in India. But even that side of the regulatory framework is cumbersome and restrictive. And there isn't much incentive for foreign investors, either: all the money I've (personally) put in to Hayai so far? I'm not even allowed to repatriate that.
Discourages is probably the wrong word to use. More like there is no incentive. The thinking is "do the bare minimum, and we'll leave you alone".
What incentives should the govt be providing here ?
Officially, there's nothing that encourages providers to provide better/faster services. There's no good reason to peer at NIXI. There's no incentive to co-operate with competitors (peering, infrastructure, etc). The prices consumers pay per MB/GB are ridiculous - this could use some serious regulation.
You want more regulation or the 'right' regulation.
Less regulation means less hassle for you.
The regulations are not keeping up with the pace of change. The wholesale ceiling tariff is still at 2.99Cr/year/STM, even though it's possible to get lower, this too needs to be updated so that ISPs are able and/or forced to purchase more bandwidth and improve speeds.
Why should ISP's be forced by govt to do something ?
I personally would still like to see ISPs simply stop worrying about 256k minimums and open up the taps with data plans - or at least provide such an option to consumers at a reasonable price.
Why would they be worrying about 256kbs minimums ?
If they have to worry about 256kbs then where is the chance they can provide more. They clearly are incapable of doing so.
So there needs to be some kind of incentive to invest in India. But even that side of the regulatory framework is cumbersome and restrictive. And there isn't much incentive for foreign investors, either: all the money I've (personally) put in to Hayai so far? I'm not even allowed to repatriate that.
But you can repatriate any profits you make ? And you certainly expect to make a good deal there otherwise you would not be here in the first place.
The current account is fully convertible its the capital account that isn't fully convertible yet.
What incentives should the govt be providing here ?
Officially, there's nothing that encourages providers to provide better/faster services. There's no good reason to peer at NIXI. There's no incentive to co-operate with competitors (peering, infrastructure, etc). The prices consumers pay per MB/GB are ridiculous - this could use some serious regulation.
You want more regulation or the 'right' regulation.
Less regulation means less hassle for you.
The regulations are not keeping up with the pace of change. The wholesale ceiling tariff is still at 2.99Cr/year/STM, even though it's possible to get lower, this too needs to be updated so that ISPs are able and/or forced to purchase more bandwidth and improve speeds.
Why should ISP's be forced by govt to do something ?
I personally would still like to see ISPs simply stop worrying about 256k minimums and open up the taps with data plans - or at least provide such an option to consumers at a reasonable price.
Why would they be worrying about 256kbs minimums ?
If they have to worry about 256kbs then where is the chance they can provide more. They clearly are incapable of doing so.
So there needs to be some kind of incentive to invest in India. But even that side of the regulatory framework is cumbersome and restrictive. And there isn't much incentive for foreign investors, either: all the money I've (personally) put in to Hayai so far? I'm not even allowed to repatriate that.
But you can repatriate any profits you make ? And you certainly expect to make a good deal there otherwise you would not be here in the first place.
The current account is fully convertible its the capital account that isn't fully convertible yet.
A FUP. I call it Unfair Usage policy for customers instead of FUP.
---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 AM ----------
It really sucks. FUP should be implemented like it will not affect our experience. For example. tariff should be like 5GB @ 5mbps after it is being used. Speed will be 1 mbps. High speed to low speed FUP always makes me worried. Right now, I owned BSNL ULD COMBO 1350. In it, first 2ogb will given @speed of 4mbps and then it will decreased down to 512kbps. This is unfair because this speed is good for surfing and somewhat at downloading also but no good for buffering. And they makes greedy about speed by throwing 4 mbps in starting. Really, 4 mbps is very good. It downloads movie in 30-50 mins.
---------- Post added at 08:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 AM ----------
And I am allergic to '256'. I hate a lot. After some usage, companies are really torturing their customers by giving 256 kbps.
---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 AM ----------
It really sucks. FUP should be implemented like it will not affect our experience. For example. tariff should be like 5GB @ 5mbps after it is being used. Speed will be 1 mbps. High speed to low speed FUP always makes me worried. Right now, I owned BSNL ULD COMBO 1350. In it, first 2ogb will given @speed of 4mbps and then it will decreased down to 512kbps. This is unfair because this speed is good for surfing and somewhat at downloading also but no good for buffering. And they makes greedy about speed by throwing 4 mbps in starting. Really, 4 mbps is very good. It downloads movie in 30-50 mins.
---------- Post added at 08:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 AM ----------
And I am allergic to '256'. I hate a lot. After some usage, companies are really torturing their customers by giving 256 kbps.
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
What incentives should the govt be providing here ?
Faster Internet could improve the economy. There could be a number of things they could do, including but not limited to making it easier to put down infrastructure and implementing LLU so that providers can have more reach and more competition.
You want more regulation or the 'right' regulation.
Less regulation means less hassle for you.
Regulation is needed, but it needs to be the right regulation, and in this case I mean regulation against profiteering (even Rs200/GB is outrageous).
Why should ISP's be forced by govt to do something ?
Forced may have been the wrong word, but by decreasing the ceiling tariffs, the price of wholesale bandwidth comes down which is good for everyone. And maybe the stupid way NIXI has it's tariffs should be fixed so that interconnections between ISPs was less of a problem.
Why would they be worrying about 256kbs minimums ?
If they have to worry about 256kbs then where is the chance they can provide more. They clearly are incapable of doing so.
Currently all ISPs are worried about is the 256kbit/s minimum. Instead of that, they should be concentrating on "how fast can we provide". It's a much more interesting contest then.
But you can repatriate any profits you make ? And you certainly expect to make a good deal there otherwise you would not be here in the first place.
Of course I expect to make a good deal. Preferably without robbing people blind, but still. A certain amount per year, yes. I can probably buy things and invest overseas but I think most of my personal wealth is supposed to remain in India. There are probably ways around this but this would be for my CA and/or wealth manager(s) to figure out as I'm not familiar enough with the loopholes and all that.
A FUP. I call it Unfair Usage policy for customers instead of FUP.
---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 AM ----------
It really sucks. FUP should be implemented like it will not affect our experience. For example. tariff should be like 5GB @ 5mbps after it is being used. Speed will be 1 mbps. High speed to low speed FUP always makes me worried. Right now, I owned BSNL ULD COMBO 1350. In it, first 2ogb will given @speed of 4mbps and then it will decreased down to 512kbps. This is unfair because this speed is good for surfing and somewhat at downloading also but no good for buffering. And they makes greedy about speed by throwing 4 mbps in starting. Really, 4 mbps is very good. It downloads movie in 30-50 mins.
---------- Post added at 08:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 AM ----------
And I am allergic to '256'. I hate a lot. After some usage, companies are really torturing their customers by giving 256 kbps.
There goes that minimum again. Of course, 4mbit/s to 512k or whatever is nothing compared to AU/NZ, where it's 16+ to 64k (NZ) or even 100mbit/s to 64k (AU). Of course, these are FUPs of 100+ GB (in Australia's case) so it's not *that* horrifying.
Faster Internet could improve the economy. There could be a number of things they could do, including but not limited to making it easier to put down infrastructure and implementing LLU so that providers can have more reach and more competition.
You want more regulation or the 'right' regulation.
Less regulation means less hassle for you.
Regulation is needed, but it needs to be the right regulation, and in this case I mean regulation against profiteering (even Rs200/GB is outrageous).
Why should ISP's be forced by govt to do something ?
Forced may have been the wrong word, but by decreasing the ceiling tariffs, the price of wholesale bandwidth comes down which is good for everyone. And maybe the stupid way NIXI has it's tariffs should be fixed so that interconnections between ISPs was less of a problem.
Why would they be worrying about 256kbs minimums ?
If they have to worry about 256kbs then where is the chance they can provide more. They clearly are incapable of doing so.
Currently all ISPs are worried about is the 256kbit/s minimum. Instead of that, they should be concentrating on "how fast can we provide". It's a much more interesting contest then.
But you can repatriate any profits you make ? And you certainly expect to make a good deal there otherwise you would not be here in the first place.
Of course I expect to make a good deal. Preferably without robbing people blind, but still. A certain amount per year, yes. I can probably buy things and invest overseas but I think most of my personal wealth is supposed to remain in India. There are probably ways around this but this would be for my CA and/or wealth manager(s) to figure out as I'm not familiar enough with the loopholes and all that.
A FUP. I call it Unfair Usage policy for customers instead of FUP.
---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 AM ----------
It really sucks. FUP should be implemented like it will not affect our experience. For example. tariff should be like 5GB @ 5mbps after it is being used. Speed will be 1 mbps. High speed to low speed FUP always makes me worried. Right now, I owned BSNL ULD COMBO 1350. In it, first 2ogb will given @speed of 4mbps and then it will decreased down to 512kbps. This is unfair because this speed is good for surfing and somewhat at downloading also but no good for buffering. And they makes greedy about speed by throwing 4 mbps in starting. Really, 4 mbps is very good. It downloads movie in 30-50 mins.
---------- Post added at 08:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 AM ----------
And I am allergic to '256'. I hate a lot. After some usage, companies are really torturing their customers by giving 256 kbps.
There goes that minimum again. Of course, 4mbit/s to 512k or whatever is nothing compared to AU/NZ, where it's 16+ to 64k (NZ) or even 100mbit/s to 64k (AU). Of course, these are FUPs of 100+ GB (in Australia's case) so it's not *that* horrifying.
A FUP. I call it Unfair Usage policy for customers instead of FUP.
---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 AM ----------
It really sucks. FUP should be implemented like it will not affect our experience. For example. tariff should be like 5GB @ 5mbps after it is being used. Speed will be 1 mbps. High speed to low speed FUP always makes me worried. Right now, I owned BSNL ULD COMBO 1350. In it, first 2ogb will given @speed of 4mbps and then it will decreased down to 512kbps. This is unfair because this speed is good for surfing and somewhat at downloading also but no good for buffering. And they makes greedy about speed by throwing 4 mbps in starting. Really, 4 mbps is very good. It downloads movie in 30-50 mins.
---------- Post added at 08:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 AM ----------
And I am allergic to '256'. I hate a lot. After some usage, companies are really torturing their customers by giving 256 kbps.
There goes that minimum again. Of course, 4mbit/s to 512k or whatever is nothing compared to AU/NZ, where it's 16+ to 64k (NZ) or even 100mbit/s to 64k (AU). Of course, these are FUPs of 100+ GB (in Australia's case) so it's not *that* horrifying.
I do not know how they count usage because in 4-5 days, I am running out from my 20gb cap. I am just afraid from having 512 kbps and I have it for entire month.
---------- Post added at 08:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 AM ----------
It really sucks. FUP should be implemented like it will not affect our experience. For example. tariff should be like 5GB @ 5mbps after it is being used. Speed will be 1 mbps. High speed to low speed FUP always makes me worried. Right now, I owned BSNL ULD COMBO 1350. In it, first 2ogb will given @speed of 4mbps and then it will decreased down to 512kbps. This is unfair because this speed is good for surfing and somewhat at downloading also but no good for buffering. And they makes greedy about speed by throwing 4 mbps in starting. Really, 4 mbps is very good. It downloads movie in 30-50 mins.
---------- Post added at 08:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 AM ----------
And I am allergic to '256'. I hate a lot. After some usage, companies are really torturing their customers by giving 256 kbps.
There goes that minimum again. Of course, 4mbit/s to 512k or whatever is nothing compared to AU/NZ, where it's 16+ to 64k (NZ) or even 100mbit/s to 64k (AU). Of course, these are FUPs of 100+ GB (in Australia's case) so it's not *that* horrifying.
I do not know how they count usage because in 4-5 days, I am running out from my 20gb cap. I am just afraid from having 512 kbps and I have it for entire month.
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
MG why is it that FTTH plans are costlier(compared to MTNL) Than FTTB? I mean FTTB and FTTH are similar of my isp beam.
-
That's a hard question to answer in a straight way, because there are a lot of variables involved. Much of MTNL's copper is decades old - I'm pretty sure the financial depreciation on it over that period of time puts it fairly close to being worthless (as business goes - operationally most of it is still sufficient for a few megabits), and they're probably no longer seeking RoI on most of it. Of course, they still spend a lot every year on replacing/upgrading/building new infrastructure.
Beam is FTTB. FTTB equipment isn't that expensive - a 24-port Fast Ethernet switch with a Fiber input is like $200-250 or so (so not even Rs500/customer), but still it's newer and more expensive cabling than the twisted-pairs MTNL was giving, especially in the older installations (my understanding is that the new installations are Cat5 cable which is now cheaper than the old-style phone cables, even if it's only terminated with RJ11 plugs).
True FTTH has the CPEs involved, and as we're going for Gigabit, that does increase the price (marginally, but not significantly) over FTTB installations, but at the end of the day, it gives us the advantage of having a network capable of more speed than anybody else.
On a per megabit basis, the capability of FTTB or FTTH far exceeds anything any DSL network can do, so the cost per megabit is therefore much much less.
-
That's a hard question to answer in a straight way, because there are a lot of variables involved. Much of MTNL's copper is decades old - I'm pretty sure the financial depreciation on it over that period of time puts it fairly close to being worthless (as business goes - operationally most of it is still sufficient for a few megabits), and they're probably no longer seeking RoI on most of it. Of course, they still spend a lot every year on replacing/upgrading/building new infrastructure.
Beam is FTTB. FTTB equipment isn't that expensive - a 24-port Fast Ethernet switch with a Fiber input is like $200-250 or so (so not even Rs500/customer), but still it's newer and more expensive cabling than the twisted-pairs MTNL was giving, especially in the older installations (my understanding is that the new installations are Cat5 cable which is now cheaper than the old-style phone cables, even if it's only terminated with RJ11 plugs).
True FTTH has the CPEs involved, and as we're going for Gigabit, that does increase the price (marginally, but not significantly) over FTTB installations, but at the end of the day, it gives us the advantage of having a network capable of more speed than anybody else.
On a per megabit basis, the capability of FTTB or FTTH far exceeds anything any DSL network can do, so the cost per megabit is therefore much much less.
Faster Internet could improve the economy. There could be a number of things they could do, including but not limited to making it easier to put down infrastructure and implementing LLU so that providers can have more reach and more competition.
LLU is something this board has advocated for many years now, what do you think is the reason for the holdup. A lack of vision on the part of the govt i don't think is the reason, instead suspect there are more tangible reasons to maintain the status quo. I think the reason is the govts networks cannot support unbundling without an unacceptable loss of performance beause they are of low quality. This is why we've never had a mom & pop ISP phase here unlike in the west. If you wanted to start an ISP you have to lay your own line.
The other thing is by the time we started to liberalise and open up the cellphone industy was already in full swing abroad, therefore it was considered smarter to put the money into mobile networks, which in turn discouraged the investments sorely needed in wired networks. You can't knock this decision because there are claims floating out there that three quarters of the country has access to a cellphone today.
To allow unbundling will require a country wide, wired public network upgrade if there is to be any consistency in expectations. And that requires big bucks out of the public kitty. Does BSNL & MTNL have access to these funds ? doubtful.
We have lots of other more deserving causes to support than faster & more affordable internet for everyone unfortunately.
Regulation is needed, but it needs to be the right regulation, and in this case I mean regulation against profiteering (even Rs200/GB is outrageous).
You make it sound like hoarding, is it really that bad. If the market is gagging for faster speeds then there will be incentives for other players to exploit that shortage. So its self regulating situation rather than having govt do it. Now if players cannot enter the market thats a different situation altogether. But you're here so there isn't any barrier is there.
You can't legislate against Rs.200/GB because an internet connection isn't a right. If somebody is screwing the pooch here then others should be coming in to reduce the incentive to do so. If nobody is interested then thats how much a GB costs in that particular area. A GB will be cheaper elsewhere because the numbers are there to justify so.
Forced may have been the wrong word, but by decreasing the ceiling tariffs, the price of wholesale bandwidth comes down which is good for everyone. And maybe the stupid way NIXI has it's tariffs should be fixed so that interconnections between ISPs was less of a problem.
Can you explain what you mean by ceiling tarrif ?
WHat is the 'correct' price for that tariff
Currently all ISPs are worried about is the 256kbit/s minimum. Instead of that, they should be concentrating on "how fast can we provide". It's a much more interesting contest then.
I'm still under the impression there isn't any incentive to go faster. The way the regulatory framework is setup in India & the poor quality of country's networks is the biggest barrier.
LLU is something this board has advocated for many years now, what do you think is the reason for the holdup. A lack of vision on the part of the govt i don't think is the reason, instead suspect there are more tangible reasons to maintain the status quo. I think the reason is the govts networks cannot support unbundling without an unacceptable loss of performance beause they are of low quality. This is why we've never had a mom & pop ISP phase here unlike in the west. If you wanted to start an ISP you have to lay your own line.
The other thing is by the time we started to liberalise and open up the cellphone industy was already in full swing abroad, therefore it was considered smarter to put the money into mobile networks, which in turn discouraged the investments sorely needed in wired networks. You can't knock this decision because there are claims floating out there that three quarters of the country has access to a cellphone today.
To allow unbundling will require a country wide, wired public network upgrade if there is to be any consistency in expectations. And that requires big bucks out of the public kitty. Does BSNL & MTNL have access to these funds ? doubtful.
We have lots of other more deserving causes to support than faster & more affordable internet for everyone unfortunately.
Regulation is needed, but it needs to be the right regulation, and in this case I mean regulation against profiteering (even Rs200/GB is outrageous).
You make it sound like hoarding, is it really that bad. If the market is gagging for faster speeds then there will be incentives for other players to exploit that shortage. So its self regulating situation rather than having govt do it. Now if players cannot enter the market thats a different situation altogether. But you're here so there isn't any barrier is there.
You can't legislate against Rs.200/GB because an internet connection isn't a right. If somebody is screwing the pooch here then others should be coming in to reduce the incentive to do so. If nobody is interested then thats how much a GB costs in that particular area. A GB will be cheaper elsewhere because the numbers are there to justify so.
Forced may have been the wrong word, but by decreasing the ceiling tariffs, the price of wholesale bandwidth comes down which is good for everyone. And maybe the stupid way NIXI has it's tariffs should be fixed so that interconnections between ISPs was less of a problem.
Can you explain what you mean by ceiling tarrif ?
WHat is the 'correct' price for that tariff
Currently all ISPs are worried about is the 256kbit/s minimum. Instead of that, they should be concentrating on "how fast can we provide". It's a much more interesting contest then.
I'm still under the impression there isn't any incentive to go faster. The way the regulatory framework is setup in India & the poor quality of country's networks is the biggest barrier.
