there is need for educating peoples also, as there are options avialable other than torrents through which they can download almost all stuff they do with the torrents.With using download managers like IDM & others free DMs with just 2-4 connections one can download more stuff at better speeds from hosting sites like mediafire without the need of purchasing the Premium accounts. The stuff available on such sites is huge, it just needs to be expored. this will also help reduce strain on the wireless networks which is caused by the huge amount of connections made by the torrents which will result more smooth experience for all user on that networks.
-
Amazon Deals - ToS - Like us?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
National Broadband Plan, TRAI and the Indian broadband customer
- Thread starter itzmynet
- Start date
- Replies 151
- Views 45,633
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
Peering, international tariff aside, if you can offer 5 Mbit/s flat rate at 2.5k, why haven't the others come close so far?
Because we're prepared to take some risks: there are numerous things that could bite us in the arse, including but not limited to every single subscriber downloading more than a given number of GBs - which would put us financially in the red.
However, we have ways of staying in the black. Firstly, with volume comes better prices, and secondly, even at current wholesale rates, we believe that the given number of GBs that we have in mind is sufficiently high (close enough to 150GB) that only a limited number of subscribers would actually cross this "threshold", and if the average usage per plan is a lot less than that, chances are you'll see the price of the plan fall, or speeds will increase. Even now, we're currently examining the possibility of removing the 5mbit/s flat-rate option and having 10mbit/s at this same price (2499).
In reality, we *could* even offer 100mbit/s flat-rate at 2499, however for the moment we can't count on people with that kind of speed *not* hitting that threshold, so we have tiers with fairly equal spacing between prices. We have to assume that someone with a 100mbit/s flat-rate connection will download a certain percentage more than someone with 2 or 5 mbit/s, not that they will necessarily saturate the connection.
Unlike for example BSNL's FTTH pricing, we're pricing our plans much closer together: BSNL's tariffs for 1mbit/s are 2999 whereas 8mbit/s is 11999 and 100mbit/s is 83999: they're basically charging for each potential GB that could pass through those cables - we're not - according to the old price list, 5mbit/s was 2499, whereas 100mbit/s was 9999. Rs84k would easily pay for some 8TB of downloads, but for residential use this would be impractical, as such we're pricing it where we assume something more realistic - say, 600GB, and so we only charge according to that. While some people may still download even twice that much, chances are, this would be outweighed by those that do not.
Businesses have separate pricing and the pricing reflects the number of computers in the business, so we don't anticipate the problems whereby Airtel has blamed FUPs and such on cyber-cafes or businesses taking residential connections - and our pricing isn't so much higher that such measures would be necessary from those taking connections (I've been told I should charge 6x as much to businesses - but we don't).
As far as I'm concerned, that makes a bit more sense... am I making sense?
there is need for educating peoples also, as there are options avialable other than torrents through which they can download almost all stuff they do with the torrents.
With using download managers like IDM & others free DMs with just 2-4 connections one can download more stuff at better speeds from hosting sites like mediafire without the need of purchasing the Premium accounts.
The stuff available on such sites is huge, it just needs to be expored. this will also help reduce strain on the wireless networks which is caused by the huge amount of connections made by the torrents which will result more smooth experience for all user on that networks.
It's not necessarily torrents that are the problem, it is the international bandwidth required. If you download a torrent and most of the seeds are in the USA, or if you download via HTTP or FTP from a website hosted in the USA, as far as the network is concerned, it's basically the same and it costs us the same amount of money: it's traffic coming from outside the country which costs us a given amount of money.
Part of the reason ISPs including myself pick on BitTorrent is because this is the predominant technology which takes up the resources. If webservers hosting warez and such weren't so easy to shut down/block, HTTP would probably still be king and you'd find a lot more DNS and IP-blocking taking place than happens now. P2P in it's various incarnations in that sense are a boon for the file-sharing community, but a headache for ISPs and whatnot because they're difficult enough to implement traffic-shaping on now, let alone block completely.
---------- Post added at 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------
Can you please put forth your entire idea ( emphasizing on the need for wired access like ftth and unbundling as wireless has it own limitations in terms of spectrum availability and congestion) directly to the new telecom min who appears to be straightforward, honest and efficient ...
Appears. Time will tell.
We may possibly see some action on the ground once he is educated about the pathetic state of affairs and the steps required to set it right.
Perhaps. We can have a chat and perhaps come to some sort of agreement, but I remain skeptical that government regulation is only useful up to a certain point.
The situation as it is has been counter-productive so far. I've already mentioned that basically when you guys request broadband, you request the bare minimum from the ISPs, and this is all you get: and this leads to extremely inefficient use of the resources/bandwidth that are available.
I was talking to one of the larger ISPs in Auckland NZ on Friday, who have traffic levels of less than 5Gbit/s (international), with 2 Gbit/s peering in NZ - and if I had to guess, based on the number of IPs they have, their subscriber base is about 10% of the NZ market, whose speed could be up to the maximum speeds of ADSL2+ (24mbit/s - not unlimited, of course).
With these numbers we're talking approximately just 12GB per subscriber (international bandwidth), but the fact that they can survive with only about 4Gbit/s yet still give relatively good speeds suggests to me that the networks here are far more efficient than in India because of this fairly simple difference: Airtel has about 100Gbit/s - 20x the amount of bandwidth for 10x as many broadband customers.
Clearly, giving everyone 256k doesn't work and this with the peering situation in India is costing Airtel significantly more than it should need to spend. I suspect if they simply uncapped the speed on everyone's lines and gave everyone data (say, 50GB), overall usage would remain the same but the speeds the consumer would get would be far faster than now.
Might I also add that it might have been a certain 'Radia' who stalled your efforts until now and now that she is laying low things may change/improve.
.
I don't think her dealings have had much if anything to do with what we want to offer - I've not had any reason to deal with her directly till now.
Because we're prepared to take some risks: there are numerous things that could bite us in the arse, including but not limited to every single subscriber downloading more than a given number of GBs - which would put us financially in the red.
However, we have ways of staying in the black. Firstly, with volume comes better prices, and secondly, even at current wholesale rates, we believe that the given number of GBs that we have in mind is sufficiently high (close enough to 150GB) that only a limited number of subscribers would actually cross this "threshold", and if the average usage per plan is a lot less than that, chances are you'll see the price of the plan fall, or speeds will increase. Even now, we're currently examining the possibility of removing the 5mbit/s flat-rate option and having 10mbit/s at this same price (2499).
In reality, we *could* even offer 100mbit/s flat-rate at 2499, however for the moment we can't count on people with that kind of speed *not* hitting that threshold, so we have tiers with fairly equal spacing between prices. We have to assume that someone with a 100mbit/s flat-rate connection will download a certain percentage more than someone with 2 or 5 mbit/s, not that they will necessarily saturate the connection.
Unlike for example BSNL's FTTH pricing, we're pricing our plans much closer together: BSNL's tariffs for 1mbit/s are 2999 whereas 8mbit/s is 11999 and 100mbit/s is 83999: they're basically charging for each potential GB that could pass through those cables - we're not - according to the old price list, 5mbit/s was 2499, whereas 100mbit/s was 9999. Rs84k would easily pay for some 8TB of downloads, but for residential use this would be impractical, as such we're pricing it where we assume something more realistic - say, 600GB, and so we only charge according to that. While some people may still download even twice that much, chances are, this would be outweighed by those that do not.
Businesses have separate pricing and the pricing reflects the number of computers in the business, so we don't anticipate the problems whereby Airtel has blamed FUPs and such on cyber-cafes or businesses taking residential connections - and our pricing isn't so much higher that such measures would be necessary from those taking connections (I've been told I should charge 6x as much to businesses - but we don't).
As far as I'm concerned, that makes a bit more sense... am I making sense?
there is need for educating peoples also, as there are options avialable other than torrents through which they can download almost all stuff they do with the torrents.
With using download managers like IDM & others free DMs with just 2-4 connections one can download more stuff at better speeds from hosting sites like mediafire without the need of purchasing the Premium accounts.
The stuff available on such sites is huge, it just needs to be expored. this will also help reduce strain on the wireless networks which is caused by the huge amount of connections made by the torrents which will result more smooth experience for all user on that networks.
It's not necessarily torrents that are the problem, it is the international bandwidth required. If you download a torrent and most of the seeds are in the USA, or if you download via HTTP or FTP from a website hosted in the USA, as far as the network is concerned, it's basically the same and it costs us the same amount of money: it's traffic coming from outside the country which costs us a given amount of money.
Part of the reason ISPs including myself pick on BitTorrent is because this is the predominant technology which takes up the resources. If webservers hosting warez and such weren't so easy to shut down/block, HTTP would probably still be king and you'd find a lot more DNS and IP-blocking taking place than happens now. P2P in it's various incarnations in that sense are a boon for the file-sharing community, but a headache for ISPs and whatnot because they're difficult enough to implement traffic-shaping on now, let alone block completely.
---------- Post added at 12:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:54 AM ----------
Can you please put forth your entire idea ( emphasizing on the need for wired access like ftth and unbundling as wireless has it own limitations in terms of spectrum availability and congestion) directly to the new telecom min who appears to be straightforward, honest and efficient ...
Appears. Time will tell.
We may possibly see some action on the ground once he is educated about the pathetic state of affairs and the steps required to set it right.
Perhaps. We can have a chat and perhaps come to some sort of agreement, but I remain skeptical that government regulation is only useful up to a certain point.
The situation as it is has been counter-productive so far. I've already mentioned that basically when you guys request broadband, you request the bare minimum from the ISPs, and this is all you get: and this leads to extremely inefficient use of the resources/bandwidth that are available.
I was talking to one of the larger ISPs in Auckland NZ on Friday, who have traffic levels of less than 5Gbit/s (international), with 2 Gbit/s peering in NZ - and if I had to guess, based on the number of IPs they have, their subscriber base is about 10% of the NZ market, whose speed could be up to the maximum speeds of ADSL2+ (24mbit/s - not unlimited, of course).
With these numbers we're talking approximately just 12GB per subscriber (international bandwidth), but the fact that they can survive with only about 4Gbit/s yet still give relatively good speeds suggests to me that the networks here are far more efficient than in India because of this fairly simple difference: Airtel has about 100Gbit/s - 20x the amount of bandwidth for 10x as many broadband customers.
Clearly, giving everyone 256k doesn't work and this with the peering situation in India is costing Airtel significantly more than it should need to spend. I suspect if they simply uncapped the speed on everyone's lines and gave everyone data (say, 50GB), overall usage would remain the same but the speeds the consumer would get would be far faster than now.
Might I also add that it might have been a certain 'Radia' who stalled your efforts until now and now that she is laying low things may change/improve.
.
I don't think her dealings have had much if anything to do with what we want to offer - I've not had any reason to deal with her directly till now.
Hi Mgcarley!i was wondering if bsnl is having almost 70-80 miliion broadband customers combining all types & if they start providing most connections with say 2 mbps unlimited then their total international bandwidth requirement will also increase almost 5 times, so won't they be in a better position to negotiate with the international bandwidth suppliers over prices & bring down the overall prices per GB. Being the largest of the bandwidth buyer can't they be in a better negotiation position.And this can be applicable to all of the ISPs if they start demanding more of that bandwidth won't the prices com down when the overall volume will go up & they can offer better speed/price to the user.But they are just interested in milking the cow as long as there is no cowboy watching it!most of the ISPs are mainly focusing on FUPs & that too with minimal limits. Why don't they offer an unlimitedplan for all speed slabs be it priced above enough from the FUPs carrying plans, that way the heavy downloaders will be having an option rather than cursing the ISPs.frankly i am a huge supporter of your idea of purchasing/selling data rather than speed. say if am using 150-200 gb per month, than i can go for puchasing 1 TB for 6months data & use it accordingly. If the same is being provided over a 100mbps connection that would save me time & i won't have to sit in front of my computer whole day also i can use my time in various other things. This way the network too will also remain less congested resulting better quality for end users.
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
Hi Mgcarley!
i was wondering if bsnl is having almost 70-80 miliion broadband customers combining all types & if they start providing most connections with say 2 mbps unlimited then their total international bandwidth requirement will also increase almost 5 times, so won't they be in a better position to negotiate with the international bandwidth suppliers over prices & bring down the overall prices per GB. Being the largest of the bandwidth buyer can't they be in a better negotiation position.
And this can be applicable to all of the ISPs if they start demanding more of that bandwidth won't the prices com down when the overall volume will go up & they can offer better speed/price to the user.But they are just interested in milking the cow as long as there is no cowboy watching it!
BSNL doesn't have anything even close to that number of users - as of now the total market in India is less than 11 million, so the other 70-odd million internet subscribers in India are NOT on Broadband.
Additionally, there is a difference between what prices we get and what prices BSNL will get for IBW. We might pay Rs5k /mbit /month for example, but because of the sheer volume that BSNL buys, unless they are REALLY bad at negotiating, then I expect that they pay far less for exactly the same thing. So however many users they get in the future, the prices which they negotiate will only apply to them.
The reason a tariff ceiling would need to be in place is so that *ALL* ISPs - both and small, would only be forced to pay a maximum amount, so that smaller ISPs can still be competitive - otherwise if we pay Rs5k /mbit /month and they pay Rs200 /mbit /month, then the price disparity between our respective services would be rather huge!
Back to the point though, if we were looking at 80 million subscribers with 2mbit/s "unlimited" each, we'd be looking at required capacity of about 5 Tbit/s if we assume an overall contention ratio of about 30:1 - NOT, as you might imagine 144Tbit/s. That would be required only if everyone got leased-lines - 5 Tbit/s is already available to India, and indeed to BSNL if they wanted to buy that much.
Irrespective - there needs to be fair-usage-policies in place: they just need to be reasonable, and in India I don't believe this is currently the case. I think that they need to be about tripled for them to be considered fair to both the conumer and the provider.
most of the ISPs are mainly focusing on FUPs & that too with minimal limits. Why don't they offer an unlimitedplan for all speed slabs be it priced above enough from the FUPs carrying plans, that way the heavy downloaders will be having an option rather than cursing the ISPs.
Because most people (especially the heavy downloaders, it seems) aren't willing to pay the kinds of prices required, especially from a government ISP.
During my research, there were several people who wanted plans that are... shall we say... uneconomical (Rs1000 for 24mbit/s unlimited). My reaction to most of those people was "yeah right"... for now, anyway (until we can get down to Rs300/mbit/month, of course).
We're in a niche market for the time being - we're aware that because of our prices our product will not have mass appeal, mostly because, although it's *fairly* cheap for what it is, it's otherwise too expensive for a large percentage of the people.
frankly i am a huge supporter of your idea of purchasing/selling data rather than speed. say if am using 150-200 gb per month, than i can go for puchasing 1 TB for 6months data & use it accordingly. If the same is being provided over a 100mbps connection that would save me time & i won't have to sit in front of my computer whole day also i can use my time in various other things. This way the network too will also remain less congested resulting better quality for end users.
Exactly. And you'll save a few rupees on your power bill.
i was wondering if bsnl is having almost 70-80 miliion broadband customers combining all types & if they start providing most connections with say 2 mbps unlimited then their total international bandwidth requirement will also increase almost 5 times, so won't they be in a better position to negotiate with the international bandwidth suppliers over prices & bring down the overall prices per GB. Being the largest of the bandwidth buyer can't they be in a better negotiation position.
And this can be applicable to all of the ISPs if they start demanding more of that bandwidth won't the prices com down when the overall volume will go up & they can offer better speed/price to the user.But they are just interested in milking the cow as long as there is no cowboy watching it!
BSNL doesn't have anything even close to that number of users - as of now the total market in India is less than 11 million, so the other 70-odd million internet subscribers in India are NOT on Broadband.
Additionally, there is a difference between what prices we get and what prices BSNL will get for IBW. We might pay Rs5k /mbit /month for example, but because of the sheer volume that BSNL buys, unless they are REALLY bad at negotiating, then I expect that they pay far less for exactly the same thing. So however many users they get in the future, the prices which they negotiate will only apply to them.
The reason a tariff ceiling would need to be in place is so that *ALL* ISPs - both and small, would only be forced to pay a maximum amount, so that smaller ISPs can still be competitive - otherwise if we pay Rs5k /mbit /month and they pay Rs200 /mbit /month, then the price disparity between our respective services would be rather huge!
Back to the point though, if we were looking at 80 million subscribers with 2mbit/s "unlimited" each, we'd be looking at required capacity of about 5 Tbit/s if we assume an overall contention ratio of about 30:1 - NOT, as you might imagine 144Tbit/s. That would be required only if everyone got leased-lines - 5 Tbit/s is already available to India, and indeed to BSNL if they wanted to buy that much.
Irrespective - there needs to be fair-usage-policies in place: they just need to be reasonable, and in India I don't believe this is currently the case. I think that they need to be about tripled for them to be considered fair to both the conumer and the provider.
most of the ISPs are mainly focusing on FUPs & that too with minimal limits. Why don't they offer an unlimitedplan for all speed slabs be it priced above enough from the FUPs carrying plans, that way the heavy downloaders will be having an option rather than cursing the ISPs.
Because most people (especially the heavy downloaders, it seems) aren't willing to pay the kinds of prices required, especially from a government ISP.
During my research, there were several people who wanted plans that are... shall we say... uneconomical (Rs1000 for 24mbit/s unlimited). My reaction to most of those people was "yeah right"... for now, anyway (until we can get down to Rs300/mbit/month, of course).
We're in a niche market for the time being - we're aware that because of our prices our product will not have mass appeal, mostly because, although it's *fairly* cheap for what it is, it's otherwise too expensive for a large percentage of the people.
frankly i am a huge supporter of your idea of purchasing/selling data rather than speed. say if am using 150-200 gb per month, than i can go for puchasing 1 TB for 6months data & use it accordingly. If the same is being provided over a 100mbps connection that would save me time & i won't have to sit in front of my computer whole day also i can use my time in various other things. This way the network too will also remain less congested resulting better quality for end users.
Exactly. And you'll save a few rupees on your power bill.
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
If we need to match the international standards, then we need somethng like 25mbps UL for for max 1k. lol thats what my boss in US use now. So do you think that Indian ISP's can provide this for home users?
Not only is this pricing not true, it's also not possible in India because the US and Indian usage patterns are very different... yet very similar: that is, in both cases about 80-85% of traffic flows towards the USA. In the USA, however, they only need to worry about the costs of peering (which are minimal), whereas in India, of course, we're talking about International traffic.
Were it so that this level of traffic remained in India, then (strictly speaking) 25mbit/s unlimited at low prices would not be a problem at all (excepting of course, NIXI's tariff structure being ridiculous, but even then it's still possible to peer privately with other ISPs).
AT&T offers 6mbit/s ADSL for $19.95 (first 12 months, thereafter $40) - that's the better part of Rs950 plus the phone service itself.
Rogers offers 25mbit/s for $69.95 - that's about 3300.
Verizon (non-FiOS) offers 10-15mbit/s for $54.95 - that's about 2500.
Verizon (FiOS) offers 25mbit/s for $69.95
CableVision/Optimum Online offers 15mbit/s for $29.95 for the first 12 months, thereafter billed at regular rates (but I couldn't find what those rates were)
Comcast/TWC couldn't find a match for the address I entered (even though I got it from Google Maps), so I don't know the exact rates but I'd say they're pretty similar to what we're seeing from the others.
So if we dis-include the special offers, while you can get "unlimited" internet for about Rs1k in the US, it's nowhere near 25mbit/s (still better than 256k though), and if you get 25mbit/s, you're paying over Rs3k for it, and even then, most of the providers have FUPs ranging from 100 to 250GB per month.
Essentially then, as it turns out, my estimated prices for service are getting closer and closer to US prices every month (though we're aiming for European prices, which would mean 100mbit/s flat-rate for about Rs3k).
Not only is this pricing not true, it's also not possible in India because the US and Indian usage patterns are very different... yet very similar: that is, in both cases about 80-85% of traffic flows towards the USA. In the USA, however, they only need to worry about the costs of peering (which are minimal), whereas in India, of course, we're talking about International traffic.
Were it so that this level of traffic remained in India, then (strictly speaking) 25mbit/s unlimited at low prices would not be a problem at all (excepting of course, NIXI's tariff structure being ridiculous, but even then it's still possible to peer privately with other ISPs).
AT&T offers 6mbit/s ADSL for $19.95 (first 12 months, thereafter $40) - that's the better part of Rs950 plus the phone service itself.
Rogers offers 25mbit/s for $69.95 - that's about 3300.
Verizon (non-FiOS) offers 10-15mbit/s for $54.95 - that's about 2500.
Verizon (FiOS) offers 25mbit/s for $69.95
CableVision/Optimum Online offers 15mbit/s for $29.95 for the first 12 months, thereafter billed at regular rates (but I couldn't find what those rates were)
Comcast/TWC couldn't find a match for the address I entered (even though I got it from Google Maps), so I don't know the exact rates but I'd say they're pretty similar to what we're seeing from the others.
So if we dis-include the special offers, while you can get "unlimited" internet for about Rs1k in the US, it's nowhere near 25mbit/s (still better than 256k though), and if you get 25mbit/s, you're paying over Rs3k for it, and even then, most of the providers have FUPs ranging from 100 to 250GB per month.
Essentially then, as it turns out, my estimated prices for service are getting closer and closer to US prices every month (though we're aiming for European prices, which would mean 100mbit/s flat-rate for about Rs3k).
I agree the pricing is not totally correct, I was talking abt comcast.His plan is 20mbps and i thnk its around 20-30$ a month. His speed test shows always arnd 23-25mbps.Sadest part in india is we dont get what is promised, like fivenet what im using right now - upto 10mbps, it hardly touches 10mbps, avg is not even 4-5mbps. but its worth the money if we compare what we have currently in Indian market. Where as every1 knws abt verizon plan, which is 150mbps for 190 $? which comes upto 8-8.5k INR. In india right now we have a plan for 100mbps by tata for 10.5k + taxes with FUP of 30 GB a month. I think by then we reach 8k for 150mbps UL, United states would be on 1Gbps for 8k, thats for sure. All Im trying to say is, Im really upset with what we have in indian market, A normal man out there would also be using a better speed than what we use rigth now. I have a business where the net speed matters alot, and everytime i get upset because of this reason. Thats why i have been trying to get hold of you Mr. mgcarley. I hope you understand my need for speed and urgency too.
mgcarley
Founder, Hayai Broadband
I agree the pricing is not totally correct, I was talking abt comcast.His plan is 20mbps and i thnk its around 20-30$ a month. His speed test shows always arnd 23-25mbps.
The best price I can find for Comcast 20Mbit/s is $53. There has been word of them offering their triple-play service including 30mbit/s speeds for $29.95 for the first 12 months of subscription, but this goes back to my previous post about special pricing vs regular pricing.
Sadest part in india is we dont get what is promised, like fivenet what im using right now - upto 10mbps, it hardly touches 10mbps, avg is not even 4-5mbps. but its worth the money if we compare what we have currently in Indian market. Where as every1 knws abt verizon plan, which is 150mbps for 190 $? which comes upto 8-8.5k INR. In india right now we have a plan for 100mbps by tata for 10.5k + taxes with Fair Usage Policy of 30 GB a month. I think by then we reach 8k for 150mbps Unlimited, United states would be on 1Gbps for 8k, thats for sure.
There are 2 things you are failing to realise:
1. As far as broadband price/speeds are concerned, the USA sucks. Big time.
2. Secondly, as I've already mentioned, because of the way traffic flows around the world, the Internet is (on the whole) very US-centric for most countries: China, Japan and Korea would probably be the obvious exceptions here. ONLY IF most of the websites that Indians access were in India could we even think of comparing the US and Indian eco-systems - otherwise it's apples to oranges and, considering point #1, a VERY BAD system to aspire to.
All Im trying to say is, Im really upset with what we have in indian market, A normal man out there would also be using a better speed than what we use rigth now. I have a business where the net speed matters alot, and everytime i get upset because of this reason. Thats why i have been trying to get hold of you Mr. mgcarley. I hope you understand my need for speed and urgency too.
Despite everything else, we haven't yet launched - at the moment, I can give you a cable but I can't turn it on.
The best price I can find for Comcast 20Mbit/s is $53. There has been word of them offering their triple-play service including 30mbit/s speeds for $29.95 for the first 12 months of subscription, but this goes back to my previous post about special pricing vs regular pricing.
Sadest part in india is we dont get what is promised, like fivenet what im using right now - upto 10mbps, it hardly touches 10mbps, avg is not even 4-5mbps. but its worth the money if we compare what we have currently in Indian market. Where as every1 knws abt verizon plan, which is 150mbps for 190 $? which comes upto 8-8.5k INR. In india right now we have a plan for 100mbps by tata for 10.5k + taxes with Fair Usage Policy of 30 GB a month. I think by then we reach 8k for 150mbps Unlimited, United states would be on 1Gbps for 8k, thats for sure.
There are 2 things you are failing to realise:
1. As far as broadband price/speeds are concerned, the USA sucks. Big time.
2. Secondly, as I've already mentioned, because of the way traffic flows around the world, the Internet is (on the whole) very US-centric for most countries: China, Japan and Korea would probably be the obvious exceptions here. ONLY IF most of the websites that Indians access were in India could we even think of comparing the US and Indian eco-systems - otherwise it's apples to oranges and, considering point #1, a VERY BAD system to aspire to.
All Im trying to say is, Im really upset with what we have in indian market, A normal man out there would also be using a better speed than what we use rigth now. I have a business where the net speed matters alot, and everytime i get upset because of this reason. Thats why i have been trying to get hold of you Mr. mgcarley. I hope you understand my need for speed and urgency too.
Despite everything else, we haven't yet launched - at the moment, I can give you a cable but I can't turn it on.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 1,714
S
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 3,816