oh well i am tired myself of listening to comparisons of prices between USA and India when it comes to broadband. people do not get it. broadband is cheap in US. mobile services are not. some things are going to be cheap here other things would be cheap there. it all depends upon the demand and supply.
-
Amazon Deals - ToS - Like us?
Why broadband sucks in India...
- Thread starter shankey_1919
- Start date
- Replies 65
- Views 20,417
westwoodwizard
Newbie
oh well i am tired myself of listening to comparisons of prices between USA and India when it comes to broadband.
people do not get it.
broadband is cheap in US. mobile services are not. some things are going to be cheap here other things would be cheap there. it all depends upon the demand and supply.
Taking into account taxpayer expenditures on research, development and infrastructure, the cost of broadband in the United States is not cheap. In fact, I would say Indian broadband at its most basic level is cheap because you have not spent much money on research, development and infrastructure while we have.
MTNL offers basic broadband for 250 Rs. No American company can match that exact offer from MTNL. Plenty of poor people in the USA will take the MTNL deal.
We spend 2.5 trillion dollars on healthcare ALONE which is 5 times higher than your total expenditures on ALL goods and services in India (the US is also 4 times smaller than India). I would say from that perspective your broadband is cheap. You have plenty of left over money saved on things like healthcare, education, energy, etc to spend on broadband in India even at so called higher prices. You also have saved money by not spending money to begin with to build the kind of telecommunications infrastructure we have in the United States which enables those "lower" prices many on the forum have referred to.
people do not get it.
broadband is cheap in US. mobile services are not. some things are going to be cheap here other things would be cheap there. it all depends upon the demand and supply.
Taking into account taxpayer expenditures on research, development and infrastructure, the cost of broadband in the United States is not cheap. In fact, I would say Indian broadband at its most basic level is cheap because you have not spent much money on research, development and infrastructure while we have.
MTNL offers basic broadband for 250 Rs. No American company can match that exact offer from MTNL. Plenty of poor people in the USA will take the MTNL deal.
We spend 2.5 trillion dollars on healthcare ALONE which is 5 times higher than your total expenditures on ALL goods and services in India (the US is also 4 times smaller than India). I would say from that perspective your broadband is cheap. You have plenty of left over money saved on things like healthcare, education, energy, etc to spend on broadband in India even at so called higher prices. You also have saved money by not spending money to begin with to build the kind of telecommunications infrastructure we have in the United States which enables those "lower" prices many on the forum have referred to.
The Internet is 40 years old and many of us have been using it much longer than you.
That's a loose definition of 'Internet'. The net's role as an engine of commerce and social change in US civilian life is less than 15 years old, despite the vintage of ARPANET. Even then, that role didn't assume prominence till a few years ago. I can't be arsed to look it up now but checking the trends of Amazon's book sales revenue vs. brick & mortars, which parallels the broader trend, will confirm that.
you the Indian taxpayer or consumer should spend billions of dollars laying cables to the United States if you want cheaper broadband
The problem isn't capacity. The gross physical capacity is much, much higher than the lit capacity of the undersea cables that connect India to the rest of the world. The major barrier to cheap broadband in India, AIUI, is international bandwidth costs and implied cartel-esque pricing arrangements among the 2-3 players who control the access to the landing stations in India.
As I see it, there's a chicken and egg problem with broadband in India. There are some conveniences for many middle-class residential users that the net provides such as bill payment or email but the vast majority of the population is still too poor to own a personal computer; Indian web content is too thin; and of course infrastructure is spotty in urban locales and worse elsewhere (although wireless can work around that void, like with cellphones). Until these issues are resolved beyond a threshold point, there's no incentive for ISPs to engage in a tariff race to the bottom, and every incentive for the current oligopoly to enjoy the honeymoon period before the net eventually assumes a commodity role. So, to wit, I think the ISPs could make the net quite cheaper right now if they want to, but they're enjoying it while it lasts.
That's a loose definition of 'Internet'. The net's role as an engine of commerce and social change in US civilian life is less than 15 years old, despite the vintage of ARPANET. Even then, that role didn't assume prominence till a few years ago. I can't be arsed to look it up now but checking the trends of Amazon's book sales revenue vs. brick & mortars, which parallels the broader trend, will confirm that.
you the Indian taxpayer or consumer should spend billions of dollars laying cables to the United States if you want cheaper broadband
The problem isn't capacity. The gross physical capacity is much, much higher than the lit capacity of the undersea cables that connect India to the rest of the world. The major barrier to cheap broadband in India, AIUI, is international bandwidth costs and implied cartel-esque pricing arrangements among the 2-3 players who control the access to the landing stations in India.
As I see it, there's a chicken and egg problem with broadband in India. There are some conveniences for many middle-class residential users that the net provides such as bill payment or email but the vast majority of the population is still too poor to own a personal computer; Indian web content is too thin; and of course infrastructure is spotty in urban locales and worse elsewhere (although wireless can work around that void, like with cellphones). Until these issues are resolved beyond a threshold point, there's no incentive for ISPs to engage in a tariff race to the bottom, and every incentive for the current oligopoly to enjoy the honeymoon period before the net eventually assumes a commodity role. So, to wit, I think the ISPs could make the net quite cheaper right now if they want to, but they're enjoying it while it lasts.
westwoodwizard
Newbie
That's a loose definition of 'Internet'. The net's role as an engine of commerce and social change in US civilian life is less than 15 years old, despite the vintage of ARPANET. Even then, that role didn't assume prominence till a few years ago. I can't be arsed to look it up now but checking the trends of Amazon's book sales revenue vs. brick & mortars, which parallels the broader trend, will confirm that.
The problem isn't capacity. The gross physical capacity is much, much higher than the lit capacity of the undersea cables that connect India to the rest of the world. The major barrier to cheap broadband in India, AIUI, is international bandwidth costs and implied cartel-esque pricing arrangements among the 2-3 players who control the access to the landing stations in India.
As I see it, there's a chicken and egg problem with broadband in India. There are some conveniences for many middle-class residential users that the net provides such as bill payment or email but the vast majority of the population is still too poor to own a personal computer; Indian web content is too thin; and of course infrastructure is spotty in urban locales and worse elsewhere (although wireless can work around that void, like with cellphones). Until these issues are resolved beyond a threshold point, there's no incentive for ISPs to engage in a tariff race to the bottom, and every incentive for the current oligopoly to enjoy the honeymoon period before the net eventually assumes a commodity role. So, to wit, I think the ISPs could make the net quite cheaper right now if they want to, but they're enjoying it while it lasts.
Your points are well taken.
I mentioned the capacity as a possibility because that appears to be an issue for countries such as South Africa and Australia which want American content but do have limited capacity between their countries and the United States at least so they say. If limited capacity to the US was the problem for those countries, I would say the same thing to them...stop surfing US websites or pay for the data charges if you want that luxury.
Taking into account what you say about gross capacity not being the problem, it seems that you do agree there are still other infrastructure problems which are a contributing factor to the state of broadband in India. What is being done about those infrastructure issues? In the United States, sure companies like Verizon have been aggressive about finally making the last mile connection of fiber to the home but cable will remain a competitor for years to come especially with DOCSIS 3.0 and potential 100Mbps service. Verizon still offers DSL for low budget families with a service level of up to 3 Mbps and it works well.
In some countries in Europe and Asia, operators have done wonders with ADSL 2+. In India, cable and dsl have never been at their best possible. Comcast and Time Warner have been providing residential service levels of 8 - 16 Mbps which is more than sufficient for people. It is not like you have to have a 50 or 100 Mbps connection especially when you cannot as many of you say get reliable 512 Kbps service.
As far as the Internet's role in American life, of course, like any technology, its role had to evolve. I have been using it since 1990 (my exposure came at the University level) and of course its use was limited within the academic/government environment so it was no doubt much different than today's internet.
The problem isn't capacity. The gross physical capacity is much, much higher than the lit capacity of the undersea cables that connect India to the rest of the world. The major barrier to cheap broadband in India, AIUI, is international bandwidth costs and implied cartel-esque pricing arrangements among the 2-3 players who control the access to the landing stations in India.
As I see it, there's a chicken and egg problem with broadband in India. There are some conveniences for many middle-class residential users that the net provides such as bill payment or email but the vast majority of the population is still too poor to own a personal computer; Indian web content is too thin; and of course infrastructure is spotty in urban locales and worse elsewhere (although wireless can work around that void, like with cellphones). Until these issues are resolved beyond a threshold point, there's no incentive for ISPs to engage in a tariff race to the bottom, and every incentive for the current oligopoly to enjoy the honeymoon period before the net eventually assumes a commodity role. So, to wit, I think the ISPs could make the net quite cheaper right now if they want to, but they're enjoying it while it lasts.
Your points are well taken.
I mentioned the capacity as a possibility because that appears to be an issue for countries such as South Africa and Australia which want American content but do have limited capacity between their countries and the United States at least so they say. If limited capacity to the US was the problem for those countries, I would say the same thing to them...stop surfing US websites or pay for the data charges if you want that luxury.
Taking into account what you say about gross capacity not being the problem, it seems that you do agree there are still other infrastructure problems which are a contributing factor to the state of broadband in India. What is being done about those infrastructure issues? In the United States, sure companies like Verizon have been aggressive about finally making the last mile connection of fiber to the home but cable will remain a competitor for years to come especially with DOCSIS 3.0 and potential 100Mbps service. Verizon still offers DSL for low budget families with a service level of up to 3 Mbps and it works well.
In some countries in Europe and Asia, operators have done wonders with ADSL 2+. In India, cable and dsl have never been at their best possible. Comcast and Time Warner have been providing residential service levels of 8 - 16 Mbps which is more than sufficient for people. It is not like you have to have a 50 or 100 Mbps connection especially when you cannot as many of you say get reliable 512 Kbps service.
As far as the Internet's role in American life, of course, like any technology, its role had to evolve. I have been using it since 1990 (my exposure came at the University level) and of course its use was limited within the academic/government environment so it was no doubt much different than today's internet.
westwoodwizard
Newbie
my friend is in Germany and he is paying 20 euros for 16mbps and he having some mobile plan under which he got a free mobile and unlimited local calls for a reasonable price.
which seems to me cheaper than USA and India.
In India there are plenty of deals for either "free" or low cost subsidized mobiled phones in exchange for a one or two year contract. The same is true in Europe and the United States. These handsets are usually pretty good but are not normally the top of the line smartphones obviously. However, the service plans in Europe and the United States are far more expensive than they are in India so even when smartphones in Europe and the USA are offered at a lower cost like the iPhone they are on condition of commitment to a contract and a high cost plan.
AT&T in the USA require a minimum $70 plus tax for the iPhone (contract or no contract). Vodafone and Airtel in India iPhone plans are around $20. American iPhone users would easily take the Vodafone plans if offered which are more than sufficient for almost 100% of the users.
Minimum Total Cost of Ownership of the iPhone through AT&T in the USA is at least $2000 for two years including the handset while in India it is not even a $1000 for two years. In India, you do not get deducted for minutes on receiving calls in the USA you do.
ARPU for Airtel and Vodafone in India is less than 300 Rs. (less than $7) In the USA, ARPU for Verizon, AT&T and Sprint is $50. Verizon Wireless USA alone has 86 million customers with almost $60 billion in annual subscriber revenues. The entire Indian mobile industry (450 million users) has revenues of only $21 billion. Mobile phone service in India is definitely far cheaper than the USA and Europe. Both the ARPU and total revenues in India are much lower than they are in the US, Europe, and East Asia.
As far as broadband in Germany, well, its Germany...I would expect nothing less from the Germans. They of course have better infrastructure and technology than India so the deal you mentioned does not surprise me. I would be curious to know whether for that price what the data cap is stated or unstated. Most of Western Europe has excellent broadband services.
which seems to me cheaper than USA and India.
In India there are plenty of deals for either "free" or low cost subsidized mobiled phones in exchange for a one or two year contract. The same is true in Europe and the United States. These handsets are usually pretty good but are not normally the top of the line smartphones obviously. However, the service plans in Europe and the United States are far more expensive than they are in India so even when smartphones in Europe and the USA are offered at a lower cost like the iPhone they are on condition of commitment to a contract and a high cost plan.
AT&T in the USA require a minimum $70 plus tax for the iPhone (contract or no contract). Vodafone and Airtel in India iPhone plans are around $20. American iPhone users would easily take the Vodafone plans if offered which are more than sufficient for almost 100% of the users.
Minimum Total Cost of Ownership of the iPhone through AT&T in the USA is at least $2000 for two years including the handset while in India it is not even a $1000 for two years. In India, you do not get deducted for minutes on receiving calls in the USA you do.
ARPU for Airtel and Vodafone in India is less than 300 Rs. (less than $7) In the USA, ARPU for Verizon, AT&T and Sprint is $50. Verizon Wireless USA alone has 86 million customers with almost $60 billion in annual subscriber revenues. The entire Indian mobile industry (450 million users) has revenues of only $21 billion. Mobile phone service in India is definitely far cheaper than the USA and Europe. Both the ARPU and total revenues in India are much lower than they are in the US, Europe, and East Asia.
As far as broadband in Germany, well, its Germany...I would expect nothing less from the Germans. They of course have better infrastructure and technology than India so the deal you mentioned does not surprise me. I would be curious to know whether for that price what the data cap is stated or unstated. Most of Western Europe has excellent broadband services.
Apple iPhone is priced at around USD 700 in the Indian market.
there is no contract from what i know but the devices are locked to the carriers.
accepted that the monthly package are priced at around USD 20-30, they come with hardly any data transfer limits. i think the limits are more like 500MB or 1GB.
and we do not have 3G in india yet. so you end up paying that much money for 500MB of data transfer at crappy speeds.
and we also do not get access to the excellent apple care here in india
and comparing the per capita income of USA and India... Apple iPhone is a very bad deal for indian customers.
this is practically the same for most smartphones that are being sold in india.
----------
and well i have already stated that the mobile services are pretty cheap in india.
we do not pay for incoming calls. we do not pay for incoming sms... calling and smsing is pretty cheap as well.
there is no contract from what i know but the devices are locked to the carriers.
accepted that the monthly package are priced at around USD 20-30, they come with hardly any data transfer limits. i think the limits are more like 500MB or 1GB.
and we do not have 3G in india yet. so you end up paying that much money for 500MB of data transfer at crappy speeds.
and we also do not get access to the excellent apple care here in india
and comparing the per capita income of USA and India... Apple iPhone is a very bad deal for indian customers.
this is practically the same for most smartphones that are being sold in india.
----------
and well i have already stated that the mobile services are pretty cheap in india.
we do not pay for incoming calls. we do not pay for incoming sms... calling and smsing is pretty cheap as well.
westwoodwizard
Newbie
Apple iPhone is priced at around USD 700 in the Indian market.
there is no contract from what i know but the devices are locked to the carriers.
accepted that the monthly package are priced at around USD 20-30, they come with hardly any data transfer limits. i think the limits are more like 500MB or 1GB.
and we do not have 3G in india yet. so you end up paying that much money for 500MB of data transfer at crappy speeds.
and we also do not get access to the excellent apple care here in india
and comparing the per capita income of USA and India... Apple iPhone is a very bad deal for indian customers.
this is practically the same for most smartphones that are being sold in india.[COLOR=\"Silver\"]
----------
[/COLOR]and well i have already stated that the mobile services are pretty cheap in india.
we do not pay for incoming calls. we do not pay for incoming sms... calling and smsing is pretty cheap as well.
Part of my point was is that the US customer has no lower monthly amount choice with AT&T..contract or no contract if you buy the iPhone you must activate it at $70 per month plus tax minimum. The average iPhone user in the USA is using less than 500 MB so the Indian plans are actually quite suitable. Given a choice, a US customer will take the Airtel/Vodafone plans any day and gladly pay for any overcharges in data if that ever happens. You still are not going to hit $70 plus tax with the Indian iPhone on a monthly basis for the same average usage as an American iPhone user.
There is no such thing as unlimited data. AT&T has its terms of services with respect to fair usage. Also, their CEO has already hinted at managing the data
usage of iPhone users even though it is AT&T that requires the $30 so called "unlimited" data plan of its iPhone users in the first place:
AT&T Wireless CEO Hints at ?Managing? iPhone Data Usage - PC World
But, noted, I do understand the fact that there is no 3G in India and the data transfer speeds there are lousy. AT&T USA actually is quite lousy also. Their so called 3G services are a major disappointment. Sprint and Verizon have better data networks and will have 4G rolled out in plenty of markets in 2010.
As far as the per capita income, well, of course...that is a factor but so far most people seem to compare the sticker prices so I went along with that.
On the other hand, the iPhone is not a necessity like food, water, shelter, healthcare or education. I always say Indians should produce their own technology if they want lower prices versus buying technology from another country like the USA as in the case of Apple products.
HCL and Videocon are actually excellent companies. For whatever reason, Indians in India view Indian technology companies as substandard even though the reality is that consumer electronics such as computers and television sets are made of similar parts supplied by a handful of companies in East Asia.
there is no contract from what i know but the devices are locked to the carriers.
accepted that the monthly package are priced at around USD 20-30, they come with hardly any data transfer limits. i think the limits are more like 500MB or 1GB.
and we do not have 3G in india yet. so you end up paying that much money for 500MB of data transfer at crappy speeds.
and we also do not get access to the excellent apple care here in india
and comparing the per capita income of USA and India... Apple iPhone is a very bad deal for indian customers.
this is practically the same for most smartphones that are being sold in india.[COLOR=\"Silver\"]
----------
[/COLOR]and well i have already stated that the mobile services are pretty cheap in india.
we do not pay for incoming calls. we do not pay for incoming sms... calling and smsing is pretty cheap as well.
Part of my point was is that the US customer has no lower monthly amount choice with AT&T..contract or no contract if you buy the iPhone you must activate it at $70 per month plus tax minimum. The average iPhone user in the USA is using less than 500 MB so the Indian plans are actually quite suitable. Given a choice, a US customer will take the Airtel/Vodafone plans any day and gladly pay for any overcharges in data if that ever happens. You still are not going to hit $70 plus tax with the Indian iPhone on a monthly basis for the same average usage as an American iPhone user.
There is no such thing as unlimited data. AT&T has its terms of services with respect to fair usage. Also, their CEO has already hinted at managing the data
usage of iPhone users even though it is AT&T that requires the $30 so called "unlimited" data plan of its iPhone users in the first place:
AT&T Wireless CEO Hints at ?Managing? iPhone Data Usage - PC World
But, noted, I do understand the fact that there is no 3G in India and the data transfer speeds there are lousy. AT&T USA actually is quite lousy also. Their so called 3G services are a major disappointment. Sprint and Verizon have better data networks and will have 4G rolled out in plenty of markets in 2010.
As far as the per capita income, well, of course...that is a factor but so far most people seem to compare the sticker prices so I went along with that.
On the other hand, the iPhone is not a necessity like food, water, shelter, healthcare or education. I always say Indians should produce their own technology if they want lower prices versus buying technology from another country like the USA as in the case of Apple products.
HCL and Videocon are actually excellent companies. For whatever reason, Indians in India view Indian technology companies as substandard even though the reality is that consumer electronics such as computers and television sets are made of similar parts supplied by a handful of companies in East Asia.
well you are forgetting that Apple manufactures almost everything in china and thus the end products are pretty cheap and that is the reason why they are so profitable. 
in the end, china is feeding the world's hardware requirements. no matter what you say... we are all dependent upon china.
ZTE is one company that is probably one of the biggest mobile manufacturer in the world. but they are little known because the phones are branded by the mobile service providers.
as for the US market. i think verizon and motorola droid are soon going to challenge Apple iPhone with Android 2.0
cannot wait for this new smartphone to arrive in the market.
----------
of course USA remains the central hub for most innovations... along with some other countries in Asia (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea).
in the end, china is feeding the world's hardware requirements. no matter what you say... we are all dependent upon china.
ZTE is one company that is probably one of the biggest mobile manufacturer in the world. but they are little known because the phones are branded by the mobile service providers.
as for the US market. i think verizon and motorola droid are soon going to challenge Apple iPhone with Android 2.0
cannot wait for this new smartphone to arrive in the market.
----------
of course USA remains the central hub for most innovations... along with some other countries in Asia (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea).
westwoodwizard
Newbie
well you are forgetting that Apple manufactures almost everything in china and thus the end products are pretty cheap and that is the reason why they are so profitable.
in the end, china is feeding the world's hardware requirements. no matter what you say... we are all dependent upon china.
ZTE is one company that is probably one of the biggest mobile manufacturer in the world. but they are little known because the phones are branded by the mobile service providers.
as for the US market. i think verizon and motorola droid are soon going to challenge Apple iPhone with Android 2.0
cannot wait for this new smartphone to arrive in the market.
----------
of course USA remains the central hub for most innovations... along with some other countries in Asia (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea).
Well yes I am aware that Apple makes nothing. That is true of most American consumer product companies which are nothing but "brands". I made that reference indirectly in my last statement about HCL/Videocon and electronics being made of parts from East Asia. That would include China and Taiwan of course. :inodding:
I think HTC was once like ZTE in that they made plenty of phones branded by the mobile phone providers in the past without reference to HTC.
There is no reason for India to not be a center for both innovation and manufacturing.
The TATA Nano has turned heads among every major car manufacturer in the world...:inodding:
in the end, china is feeding the world's hardware requirements. no matter what you say... we are all dependent upon china.
ZTE is one company that is probably one of the biggest mobile manufacturer in the world. but they are little known because the phones are branded by the mobile service providers.
as for the US market. i think verizon and motorola droid are soon going to challenge Apple iPhone with Android 2.0
cannot wait for this new smartphone to arrive in the market.
----------
of course USA remains the central hub for most innovations... along with some other countries in Asia (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea).
Well yes I am aware that Apple makes nothing. That is true of most American consumer product companies which are nothing but "brands". I made that reference indirectly in my last statement about HCL/Videocon and electronics being made of parts from East Asia. That would include China and Taiwan of course. :inodding:
I think HTC was once like ZTE in that they made plenty of phones branded by the mobile phone providers in the past without reference to HTC.
There is no reason for India to not be a center for both innovation and manufacturing.
The TATA Nano has turned heads among every major car manufacturer in the world...:inodding:
