I don't understand why we are using incomprehensible-without-supplemental-material terms like "Zero Rating" and "Net Neutrality" when discussing these matters. It's like they were crafted with the explicit purpose of confusing laymen, like someone challenged you to a game of chance, gave you loaded dice, and you just went with it.
Google joins Facebook in support of Zero Rating in India
21–30 of 46 posts
Re: Google joins Facebook in support of Zero Rating in India
#22The Indian Telecom landscape has no resemblance to the US or Europe. There is no AT&T/Comcast monopoly. Why? Because the regulator has done a pretty decent job ensuring access to voice and data stays cheap through competition. As far as I know, in all the big cities you can choose between 7-8 major provider's. No contract. Dirt cheap access. Also worth mentioning is the existence of a reasonably large public sector I…
Every market is different and so are their rules. You are right that India has more players than the US or Europe markets but it also has more diversity and population density. Imagine paying all these multiple service providers to make your content free as a small company , non-profit , or startup to reach a billion people.
With multiple service providers available, why would you bother paying one? If they decide to make your service slow, their customers will notice, and if they care about your service, they'll switch. An ISP can only pull that kind of extortion when they're the only game in town.
Re: Google joins Facebook in support of Zero Rating in India
#23I don't understand why we are using incomprehensible-without-supplemental-material terms like "Zero Rating" and "Net Neutrality" when discussing these matters. It's like they were crafted with the explicit purpose of confusing laymen, like someone challenged you to a game of chance, gave you loaded dice, and you just went with it.
Suggest some better terms?
Re: Google joins Facebook in support of Zero Rating in India
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if Orkut was zero-rated, back when Facebook started. Or if Yahoo was zero-rated when Google started. Internet giants are turning their back on users, now that they have money.
It's pretty standard practice for any company that becomes suffiently large to increase barriers to entry (after previously championing low barriers to entry when it suited them). Not saying it's good for users, but the incentives for corporations are clear.
Exactly. So that is the one thing a government should care about: keeping entry levels low.
However, politicians talk (!) to the public only just before elections. After that they listen (!) to the big guys because that is good for their ego and maybe future career.
Re: Google joins Facebook in support of Zero Rating in India
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Google and Facebook get their way, the world's poor will get subsidized "basic internet" that only delivers sponsored content. Only the competitively wealthy will be able to pay for the real internet and break out of the walled garden. This is opposed to giving everybody access to the same internet and having governments/charity subsidize the cost for those who can't afford it. Do we really want to create second c…
You are saying that he world's poor should become rich enough to pay for Internet, before they can get access to Internet? Or that some arbitrary third party should be forced to subsidize their Internet access? Why is the Indian government banning Google from providing free Internet, yet not providing such themselves?
It is like Nestle handing out free formula to new mothers. Nothing wrong with that, right...
Re: Google joins Facebook in support of Zero Rating in India
#26I don't understand why we are using incomprehensible-without-supplemental-material terms like "Zero Rating" and "Net Neutrality" when discussing these matters. It's like they were crafted with the explicit purpose of confusing laymen, like someone challenged you to a game of chance, gave you loaded dice, and you just went with it.
Suggest some better terms?
Better terms aren't even really necessary (though they'd be nice). But at least some sort of explanation in the article of what exactly it is that we're discussing would be nice.
Re: Google joins Facebook in support of Zero Rating in India
#27I don't understand why we are using incomprehensible-without-supplemental-material terms like "Zero Rating" and "Net Neutrality" when discussing these matters. It's like they were crafted with the explicit purpose of confusing laymen, like someone challenged you to a game of chance, gave you loaded dice, and you just went with it.
Suggest some better terms?
"toll free" would be clearer than "zero rated". Net neutrality is trickier though...
Re: Google joins Facebook in support of Zero Rating in India
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Google and Facebook get their way, the world's poor will get subsidized "basic internet" that only delivers sponsored content. Only the competitively wealthy will be able to pay for the real internet and break out of the walled garden. This is opposed to giving everybody access to the same internet and having governments/charity subsidize the cost for those who can't afford it. Do we really want to create second c…
You are saying that he world's poor should become rich enough to pay for Internet, before they can get access to Internet? Or that some arbitrary third party should be forced to subsidize their Internet access? Why is the Indian government banning Google from providing free Internet, yet not providing such themselves?
I think that charity with strings attached isn't charity, especially when it just disincentivizes (or makes more difficult) legitimate forms of charity. Or worse, when it makes legitimate forms of sustained enterprise more difficult.
So these western juggernauts are going to start injecting ads into vital communication infrastructure from day zero, and then when India decides it wants its own infra, do you think Google and FB will just step away? This is just the modern version of oil imperialism.
Re: Google joins Facebook in support of Zero Rating in India
#29I don't understand why we are using incomprehensible-without-supplemental-material terms like "Zero Rating" and "Net Neutrality" when discussing these matters. It's like they were crafted with the explicit purpose of confusing laymen, like someone challenged you to a game of chance, gave you loaded dice, and you just went with it.
Welcome to politics. Would you like a side of quantitative easing with your flexible labor markets?
Re: Google joins Facebook in support of Zero Rating in India
#30I don't understand why we are using incomprehensible-without-supplemental-material terms like "Zero Rating" and "Net Neutrality" when discussing these matters. It's like they were crafted with the explicit purpose of confusing laymen, like someone challenged you to a game of chance, gave you loaded dice, and you just went with it.
Suggest some better terms?
Did you even understand the frustration of OP's post? It's not the terms, it's the fact that the terms are stated with no context. If OP is frustrated about the assumption that everyone knows what terms like Zero Rating and Net Neutrality mean and wants some information about the issues, how could they reasonably suggest better terms?