mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
Earlier Fair Usage policies were also seen as a boon for customers which promised that consumers will see a rise in their speeds alongside hardly any effect on their usage(98% of them). But what are we seeing today? I have talked to so many broadband users & i will say the things are opposite, 90-95 % of them feel that the Fair Usage levels are too low or they are from the days of 2004 when 256-512 kbps were like 50-100 Mbps today.
I quite agree - FUPs are far too low. FUPs in India are too fair to the companies, but not fair to the consumers.
Not only that I don't even see any single Isp who is implementing Fair Usage Policy and giving fair limits. One or two are not implementing it totally, while the remaining have choked the internet. I can't undersatnd how some companies earlier offered 100-200Gb limits but now only 40-50 Gb, has the overall prices of bandwidth increased- no. Then why? Answer is they just want more out of same capacity & make the customer suffer.
Prices of bandwidth have fallen somewhat, to be honest, but I think what they are trying to do is balance out profitable customers from unprofitable ones - obviously infrastructure in some areas is extremely expensive, whilst in others is quite cheap. But even though in the past there have been different tariffs based on the circle you're located in, they're sort of... trying to "normalize" the tariffs across the country.
But yes, the FUP situation in India isn't really working out well for consumers at all and I think that all things considered, ESPECIALLY companies like Airtel (who are owning the international capacity already) could offer so much more for the same amount of money.
Pay per site is a concept which too will be used to maximise profit rather than reducing consumer expenditure.
Again, I don't agree necessarily with the concept but I do think there is a percentage of the market who have a limited number of sites to which they visit on a regular basis, and as such this may work out more economical for them.
For users like you and I, such schemes won't work, and therefore as long as this kind of tiered tariff structure doesn't become the norm and so long as it's not forced upon users (as in, we don't have a choice of a "you can see the whole internet" type plan), then I have no real problems with an operator choosing to offer it - and if I'm on a plan where I can only access facebook for example, then perhaps the access to facebook should be unlimited.
If I'm going to be paying for data (as most people are in most of the world), then I want my MBs/GBs to be valid anywhere on the internet and not just at a few particular websites.
I quite agree - FUPs are far too low. FUPs in India are too fair to the companies, but not fair to the consumers.
Not only that I don't even see any single Isp who is implementing Fair Usage Policy and giving fair limits. One or two are not implementing it totally, while the remaining have choked the internet. I can't undersatnd how some companies earlier offered 100-200Gb limits but now only 40-50 Gb, has the overall prices of bandwidth increased- no. Then why? Answer is they just want more out of same capacity & make the customer suffer.
Prices of bandwidth have fallen somewhat, to be honest, but I think what they are trying to do is balance out profitable customers from unprofitable ones - obviously infrastructure in some areas is extremely expensive, whilst in others is quite cheap. But even though in the past there have been different tariffs based on the circle you're located in, they're sort of... trying to "normalize" the tariffs across the country.
But yes, the FUP situation in India isn't really working out well for consumers at all and I think that all things considered, ESPECIALLY companies like Airtel (who are owning the international capacity already) could offer so much more for the same amount of money.
Pay per site is a concept which too will be used to maximise profit rather than reducing consumer expenditure.
Again, I don't agree necessarily with the concept but I do think there is a percentage of the market who have a limited number of sites to which they visit on a regular basis, and as such this may work out more economical for them.
For users like you and I, such schemes won't work, and therefore as long as this kind of tiered tariff structure doesn't become the norm and so long as it's not forced upon users (as in, we don't have a choice of a "you can see the whole internet" type plan), then I have no real problems with an operator choosing to offer it - and if I'm on a plan where I can only access facebook for example, then perhaps the access to facebook should be unlimited.
If I'm going to be paying for data (as most people are in most of the world), then I want my MBs/GBs to be valid anywhere on the internet and not just at a few particular websites.
