Airtel is big f***ers. They are investing in submarine cable for another country.

[mgcarley]

LLU is something this board has advocated for many years now, what do you think is the reason for the holdup.

BSNL and MTNL veto it.

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.

Rs Rs Rs Rs Rs Rs Rs

I think the reason is the govts networks cannot support unbundling without an unacceptable loss of performance beause they are of low quality.

Perhaps, but the networks in many countries with LLU aren't that great, either. Taking my own as an example.

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 situation here is very different to the USA, but India has plenty of "mom & pop" ISPs. You can probably only name 20 or less of the licensed providers (of which there are well over 100).

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.

I can't argue with that, except that one may argue that there has been too much emphasis placed on wireless (cellular) networks.

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.

BSNL & MTNL are upgrading their networks anyway. LLU provides another source of revenue for them - there's no reason financially speaking NOT to go for it.

We have lots of other more deserving causes to support than faster & more affordable internet for everyone unfortunately.

It can already be done today. There are many people who would not notice any difference, but there are many others who would. Everything has it's pros and cons, but the minute that other operators could be allowed to buy access to MTNL's network should cause the level of maintenance to go up, if for no other reason than out of necessity.

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.

The market *is* gagging for faster speeds. That is starting to be recognized by the players, what with the introduction of faster plans and all, but the problem is that the plans are so crippled that the purpose of having them in the first place is virtually removed. I mean, 5 or 8GB FUP? Come on now. Is a reasonable FUP so much to ask for?

Now if players cannot enter the market thats a different situation altogether. But you're here so there isn't any barrier is there.

Only because I've been fighting tooth and nail! If they can threaten to chuck out Etisalat, I hate to think what they could do to me.

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.

They legislate everything else. Why not against screwing the consumer? The trend is already in to lowering that tariff, but it's still not low enough to be of any value to those who will be paying the bills. 1GB on most unlimited plans is often valued at what appears to be pretty much cost-price, whereas those on data plans get screwed just because they have 2mbit/s instead of 1. There's no middle ground. My argument is simply that data plans could work much better if data was more reasonably priced.

But it's probably not going to happen, because those data plan tariffs are likely subsidizing the unlimited tariffs.

Can you explain what you mean by ceiling tarrif ?

WHat is the 'correct' price for that tariff

Ceiling = maximum. Correct price would be something that's adjusted to more "appropriate" levels reflecting what the market by itself has already done. 50 lakhs per annum. Hell, make it 30. Such prices are already achievable by the larger companies, demonstrated by the aforementioned tender of BSNL.

This could/should also be regulated for the domestic capacity as well. How can a dark fibre pair between Mumbai and Delhi be worth 30 Cr per year? I could just about build it myself for that (ok, maybe not - maybe more like 150-200Cr, but that would be a 1 time expense only).

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.

In a lot of cases, I'd say the birds nests that qualify as networks from some cablewalas are worse than anything MTNL or BSNL has.

 

[blr_p]

BSNL and MTNL veto it.

Why ?

Perhaps, but the networks in many countries with LLU aren't that great, either. Taking my own as an example.

Your exchanges are better than ours, your networks are more great than ours.

The situation here is very different to the USA, but India has plenty of "mom & pop" ISPs. You can probably only name 20 or less of the licensed providers (of which there are well over 100).

Only a 100 ? For 'mom & pop' i'd have expected it to be in the thousands.

I can't argue with that, except that one may argue that there has been too much emphasis placed on wireless (cellular) networks.

Agree, was talking to a guy at Idea and he was telling me for now internet access isn't a problem as most of his customers weren't big time downlaoders but he antcipated that would change in the future. The solution was better wireless tech. Now that will never compare with wired but assume you can get a 256kbs connection over wireless or even faster at affordable rates what are the possibilities then.

BSNL & MTNL are upgrading their networks anyway. LLU provides another source of revenue for them - there's no reason financially speaking NOT to go for it.

Yet you say they veto'd it why ?

It can already be done today. There are many people who would not notice any difference, but there are many others who would. Everything has it's pros and cons, but the minute that other operators could be allowed to buy access to MTNL's network should cause the level of maintenance to go up, if for no other reason than out of necessity.

Ah, yes so will the money they bring in as a result of LLU compensate and still allow them to make a profit. Not unless those networks are robust enough to handle the demand. And there is no control over that once LLU happens. It appears to be a chicken egg situation here. Cannot unbundle because it costs money and cannot make that money unless the network can handle it to start with.

The market *is* gagging for faster speeds. That is starting to be recognized by the players, what with the introduction of faster plans and all, but the problem is that the plans are so crippled that the purpose of having them in the first place is virtually removed. I mean, 5 or 8GB FUP? Come on now. Is a reasonable FUP so much to ask for?

Its resonable only to the extent that companies offering such a low FUP cannot make a proift on those plans otherwise. Its actually a statement of incapability to deliver more. Why set the limits so low otherwise.

If doubling that limit leads to a corresponding doubling or more of customers then maybe there is some case to be made. But the pipes can only carry so much traffic. So we are told they DO have more pipes but they are unlit. Something does not make sense here.

Only because I've been fighting tooth and nail! If they can threaten to chuck out Etisalat, I hate to think what they could do to me.

Ensure you do not have any investment coming from Pakistan. Etisalat based in the UAE has 27% investment from Pakistan. Now whether we will actually go back on a contract already taken out with Etisalat remains to be seen. There might be a big hue & cry in the media but where are the concrete actions taken in this regard to date.

Frankly i think this hooha aboyut Etisalat is all bunk, make sure no govt employee is on their networks and any so called threats to national security can be neutralised there & then. We should be setting an example here of following the rule of law instead of arbitrarily interfering in contracts the way China does.

They legislate everything else. Why not against screwing the consumer?

A company that screws its customers cannot hope to stay in business unless the market has been tampered with in some way or they have a monopoly or cartel of sorts. Legislating introduces all sorts of distortions and modifies behaviour.

Does the govt still maintain the largest share of the networks in the country.

The trend is already in to lowering that tariff, but it's still not low enough to be of any value to those who will be paying the bills. 1GB on most unlimited plans is often valued at what appears to be pretty much cost-price, whereas those on data plans get screwed just because they have 2mbit/s instead of 1. There's no middle ground. My argument is simply that data plans could work much better if data was more reasonably priced.

But it's probably not going to happen, because those data plan tariffs are likely subsidizing the unlimited tariffs.

Ah, the bolded bit says the heavy users aren't present in large enough numbers to make it worth it. For every heavy user they need to add x number of light users. We've reached that point already or are close to it.

That the bulk of internet users in India aren't that data heavy and expect to pay less.

Ceiling = maximum. Correct price would be something that's adjusted to more "appropriate" levels reflecting what the market by itself has already done. 50 lakhs per annum. Hell, make it 30. Such prices are already achievable by the larger companies, demonstrated by the aforementioned tender of BSNL.

This could/should also be regulated for the domestic capacity as well. How can a dark fibre pair between Mumbai and Delhi be worth 30 Cr per year? I could just about build it myself for that (ok, maybe not - maybe more like 150-200Cr, but that would be a 1 time expense only).

Are you saying the govt mandates that the ceiling tariff be not more than 50lakhs/annum.

Is this for lines coming into the country or to use existing installed lines in the country.

If these lines are privately owned then is this some sort of tax the govt imposes on private operators to operate in the country.

Am unusure of why this tariff is in place at all.

In a lot of cases, I'd say the birds nests that qualify as networks from some cablewalas are worse than anything MTNL or BSNL has.

Sure, and is a result of not doing LLU.

 

[mgcarley]

Why ?

I don't know... you'd need to ask them.

Your exchanges are better than ours, your networks are more great than ours.

Not really. The networks in most areas (except the new areas) are anything up to 40 or 50 years old. The only thing that's better about the NZ networks nowadays is that over the last few years there has been a lot of new cabinets being installed in order to make the copper loop itself shorter.

Only a 100 ? For 'mom & pop' i'd have expected it to be in the thousands.

I'm talking strictly about licensed ISPs. Your average cablewala doesn't have a license.

Agree, was talking to a guy at Idea and he was telling me for now internet access isn't a problem as most of his customers weren't big time downlaoders but he antcipated that would change in the future. The solution was better wireless tech. Now that will never compare with wired but assume you can get a 256kbs connection over wireless or even faster at affordable rates what are the possibilities then.

256kbit/s over wireless is still too low. In fact, if any technology should be free of bitrate limiting, it's the wireless technologies. Wireless isn't really designed for, nor should it be used for heavy downloading. Wireless is just not designed for a constant bit-rate.

Yet you say they veto'd it why ?

Maybe they're just stupid or lazy. I really, honestly, do not know. Maybe nobody has been able to sell them on the benefits of it.

Ah, yes so will the money they bring in as a result of LLU compensate and still allow them to make a profit. Not unless those networks are robust enough to handle the demand. And there is no control over that once LLU happens. It appears to be a chicken egg situation here. Cannot unbundle because it costs money and cannot make that money unless the network can handle it to start with.

But the network *CAN* handle it. At least in most areas. There are some areas where it is utter rubbish, but there's always going to be gaps in coverage. It's more or less unavoidable.

Because BSNL and MTNL use DSL, and because it's fiber up to the cabinet/exchange/etc it's not like they're running short of capacity. If anything, more actual ports are required in order to facilitate the growth, but those devices, while "cheap", still need sufficient users to justify putting them in.

If they're running at capacity and then they've only had like 2 requests for a connection, then they're not going to put in any more equipment... but if they've had 50, then they might. And they could totally do that if LLU took place, because all of the customers from that area would be consolidated in to the single last-mile network instead of fragmented over **NL and the various private operators and cablewalas in the area... in other words, it might actually improve the speed and efficiency at which new customers can be added to the network.

Its resonable only to the extent that companies offering such a low FUP cannot make a proift on those plans otherwise. Its actually a statement of incapability to deliver more. Why set the limits so low otherwise.

If doubling that limit leads to a corresponding doubling or more of customers then maybe there is some case to be made. But the pipes can only carry so much traffic. So we are told they DO have more pipes but they are unlit. Something does not make sense here.

Airtel are not short of bandwidth or spare capacity - not even close - yet they are currently the ISP we all love to hate at the moment for that primary reason. As for BSNL, they're running multiple 10Gbit/s wavelengths over that backbone, so they're not entirely short of capacity either. Admittedly, there are some rural-ish areas which are supplied by tiny pipes (8-45mbit/s), but they're still fiber, so I don't know why they've chosen to do that... probably simply the recycling of equipment (maximizing it's lifespan... 45mbit/s used to be a lot!)

Ensure you do not have any investment coming from Pakistan. Etisalat based in the UAE has 27% investment from Pakistan. Now whether we will actually go back on a contract already taken out with Etisalat remains to be seen. There might be a big hue & cry in the media but where are the concrete actions taken in this regard to date.

I'm relatively sure I don't have any investment coming from Pakistan. Also, I thought it was that Etisalat owned part of PCTL, not the other way around.

Frankly i think this hooha aboyut Etisalat is all bunk, make sure no govt employee is on their networks and any so called threats to national security can be neutralised there & then. We should be setting an example here of following the rule of law instead of arbitrarily interfering in contracts the way China does.

It probably happened after the fact. I'm sure when they [Etisalat] initially got their licenses there might have been little to no involvement in Pakistan.

A company that screws its customers cannot hope to stay in business unless the market has been tampered with in some way or they have a monopoly or cartel of sorts.

...so... you're talking about pretty much every ISP in India then?

Legislating introduces all sorts of distortions and modifies behaviour.

Yes and no. If the rules are solid and easy to follow, there's no reason not to follow. If it were legislated that the government ISPs couldn't cap the bitrates on data plans and that the MRP per MB or GB were like 1 paisa/Rs10 respectively, that's not a difficult rule to follow. And it puts some kind of level playing ground out there too - rather than a minimum 256kbit/s being the definition of broadband... because... what the hell is broadband? It's a word. It's terminology. Everybody has their own definition, and by definition in India it's 256k (soon to be 512k). Once you stop worrying about minimums and worry about what matters (how to deliver a good service), then the problem of slow broadband goes away.

Does the govt still maintain the largest share of the networks in the country.

Yes, it has several... which it really should consolidate.

Ah, the bolded bit says the heavy users aren't present in large enough numbers to make it worth it. For every heavy user they need to add x number of light users. We've reached that point already or are close to it.

That the bulk of internet users in India aren't that data heavy and expect to pay less.

There are a lot who are on these little data plans with only a few hundred MBs or a couple of GBs a month. Which is fine. But if those people go over their allocated monthly limit, they pay dearly. And this I have a problem with. As will anyone who has ever received a huge bandwidth bill.

Are you saying the govt mandates that the ceiling tariff be not more than 50lakhs/annum.

I'm saying that it should reduce the ceiling tariff from 2.99Cr to 50 or even 30 lakhs, yes.

Is this for lines coming into the country or to use existing installed lines in the country.

International segment only. Last mile is really a horse of a different colour.

If these lines are privately owned then is this some sort of tax the govt imposes on private operators to operate in the country.

It's not a tax. It's just the maximum tariff that can be charged by any of the operators offering MPLC/IPLC etc. Obviously, the smaller the better!

Am unusure of why this tariff is in place at all.

This is what we pay for International bandwidth. I was once quoted 1.25Cr per year for a 155mbit/s line between Mumbai and Singapore. It's less now, but 1.25Cr per year is ridiculous... let alone 2.99Cr. If the maximum tariff for such a line was 50 lakhs or whatever, then we would all know "right, so that works out to be 2688/mbit/month = 9 rupees per GB. The observant people would then notice like "holy crap, provider X is charging me Y per GB... WTF!"

Also, with a smaller tariff for bandwidth, surely ISPs would (or would be able to) buy more bandwidth, which then comes around to improve speeds/quality of service/etc.

Sure, and is a result of not doing LLU.

...it doesn't help.

 

[Deleted member 13033]

pretty soon all ibf members will need to launch their own BB co. lol