India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content • Hacker News Board

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#61

Post by icebraining » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 3:07 PM UTC

hsuresh wrote: post #40

icebraining wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what the internet should be like. The thing is: how does banning Free Basics / Internet.org provide that? That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it). Today a bunch of activists are celebrating victory, but tomorrow the poor will still have no Internet access. It's hard…

> That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it). You are assuming that Free Basics is the only way poor people are getting connected. There are several more initiatives, funded both by the public and private. Banning Free Basics ensures that we don't differentiate internet based…

You are assuming that Free Basics is the only way poor people are getting connected. There are several more initiatives, funded both by the public and private.

No, I'm saying that the campaign has been against-Free-Basics and not pro-free-Internet. If there are such initiatives, good! Then nobody will have a reason to subscribe to Free Basics, and it'll fail anyway.

Banning Free Basics ensures that we don't differentiate internet based on an individual's affordability.

But if there are free plans with full Internet access, why is that important?

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#62

Post by mtgx » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 3:08 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #11

scorpion032 wrote: post #2

Probably the most progressive regulation among anywhere in the world. Enforcement of these #NetNeutrality principles is the literal granting of the Liberties and Equalities of opportunities, granted to individuals and as such this is a landmark order that will have far reaching repercussions. Worth noting how this played out. A bunch of folks on the internet, organised themselves and campaigned to stop a $300B market…

While the David's won this round, it was against an opponent (or group of) which made several tactical errors. We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues. Because Next time it may not be Facebook, it may be the GoI itself, or reliance.

Even in the US we see people finally getting tired of the candidates pushed by Big Money, and many appear to have woken up and reject the candidates pushed by Big Money by default - like they won't even give them a second look.

I think this trend will only grow in the future, and I hope it grows enough and it gathers enough political will to actually drastically limit Big Money influence (that includes limiting corporate lobbying), and to move to a proportional representation system, like what 90 other countries in the world have.

There's a reason why there are like 40% Independents in the US - they are sick and tired of the two existing parties, but those two parties are making it virtually impossible for them to support anyone else. So either they are forced to vote for a Democrat or Republican (because we wouldn't that other monster to win) or they just refuse to vote.

Not to mention that for Congress elections, people virtually have no say in who's elected because of gerrymandering. At least 85% of the seats this year will be safe for those who already own them. So no wonder people think "why vote?" The system is rigged against them by design. This is no democracy.

Can you imagine if they actually had a choice for various other parties that could be guaranteed to be represented in Congress? We'd probably see the Democratic and Republican parties die off pretty quickly (within 10-15 years) if they wouldn't seriously reform themselves.

Lessig actually aggregated many of the extremely important reforms that the US needs to restore its democracy, under his "Citizen Equality Act", but too bad the "Democratic" party never even gave him a chance, and kept changing the rules mid-game to excuse itself for eliminating him.

His plan includes national election day, automatic registration, proportional representation, lobbying reform and citizen funded elections:

https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#63

Post by ahallock » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 3:10 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #26

retube wrote: post #24

As I understand it this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more, which is being universally applauded as a good thing. But isn't this contrary to the whole inequality issue? Shouldn't richer people be charged more? Richer people are being charged more for state infrastructure via higher taxes - which is also generally applauded as a good thing amongst the young/liberal demographic (in fact it doesn'…

The internet is not "a product", it is an essential utility. Rich people pay more than poor people for roads, but they get the same access to them as poor people. This is what the internet should be like. Historically, price differentiation for network infrastructure has been due to costs, not artificial market segmentation; it's important this continues to be the case for the majority of net citizens. As we've seen…

So in a truly free market how would people get to stores to buy products without roads or other means of transportation? Surely businesses, collectively, would pay for them.

Also, the internet is a conglomeration of things, so it's not really a product or a utility. I think comparing it to something like water or electricity is apples and oranges. What you want is easy, cheap access to the internet. I agree with you, but I'd like to see a voluntary solution.

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#64

Post by pbkhrv » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 3:11 PM UTC

fiatjaf wrote: post #50

msh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wireless telecom will never be a free marked as long as the is a limited amount of spectrum auctioned off.

Do you think it is better to hamper the market forces even more?

I see it as being more complicated than that.

Quoting wikipedia on "Free market" [1], "A free market is a market economy system ... in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."

One can argue that programs like Facebook's "Free Basics" that just got banned [2] are a "price-setting monopoly". And now that the ban is in place, you have more "intervention by a government". That looks to me like India didn't really have "free market" for internet services before this ruling either.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

[2] http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/08/india-bans-zero-rating-in...

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#65

Post by icebraining » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 3:15 PM UTC

shubhamjain wrote: post #37

icebraining wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what the internet should be like. The thing is: how does banning Free Basics / Internet.org provide that? That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it). Today a bunch of activists are celebrating victory, but tomorrow the poor will still have no Internet access. It's hard…

> That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it). Give access to the whole Internet and not just few specific sites which a megacorp has full control over. The whole argument of something-is-better-than-nothing sounds so much like 18th century colonists. I just don't get why shoul…

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I don't see how it addresses my point.

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#66

Post by lifeisstillgood » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 3:16 PM UTC

jace wrote: post #34

intended wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the David's won this round, it was against an opponent (or group of) which made several tactical errors. We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues. Because Next time it may not be Facebook, it may be the GoI itself, or reliance.

> We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues. Which is exactly what we will do.

And does #savetheInternet have or want branches outside India. It's not a local problem? Is there somewhere I can go and lend support ?

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#67

Post by mtgx » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 3:23 PM UTC

cmadan wrote: post #4

dingo_bat wrote: post #3

>Two key aspects of the Net Neutrality consultation that remain: firstly, the proposed requirement for providers of VoIP services like Whatsapp, Viber and Skype to obtain a government licence, which would mean that telecom operators could be required to treat traffic from unlicensed VoIP providers differently from the rest, and secondly, allowing telecom operators the ability to slow down and speed up websites, givin…

Its a step in the right direction. TRAI was only deciding on differential pricing not slow/fast lanes and currently no ISPs are implementing slow/fast lanes whereas differential pricing (i.e. free plans for Facebook, Whatsapp, their own shitty apps etc) were all over.

I think in this case "having to get a license" means "you'll have to allow us to monitor the communications if you want the license".

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#68

Post by Sven7 » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 3:24 PM UTC

This has been like watching one form of misinformation battling another form of misinformation. One set of misguided people battling another set of misguided people.

NetNeutrality is a concept that makes sense in a western context where carriers are basically monopolies. It's unbelievable how good arguments in one context, have been blindly applied to a completely unrelated context.

Activists in the West (who's rep and rent are based on their commitment to netneutrality) without knowing anything about the local context have been cheering on local activists.

Local activists (led by stand up comedians ofcourse similar to Glenn Beck\Jon Stewart) getting carried away by this support (cause Urban India has this strange craving for western validation which I still don't fully understand) have now convinced the regulator to step in and are celebrating victory.

This is similar to how the Egyptians celebrated victory after the army stepped in to depose a democratically elected govt. Just Unbelievable! Free markets are dead. Regulation driven by manufactured outrage or vested interests manufacturing outrage are alive and thriving.

Ofcourse it doesn't help that Facebook and their games are involved which automatically swings every debate into deeply religious territory. As much as I can't stand Facebook and will have nothing to do with them ever, the point of a free market (which produces innovation) has been lost.

If Christian missionaries or Hindu missions go and setup schools and libraries for free in Rural India is someone protesting differential pricing in Urban India. It's ridiculous.

The people who loose out are the farmer\weaver who just need an email address to be linked to the cities. Who is going to provide that now? Rural India is so vast and voiceless that they are the automatic loosers in such a debate.

Congratulations NetNeutrality activists! Well done.

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#69

Post by manish_gill » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 3:33 PM UTC

Sven7 wrote: post #68

This has been like watching one form of misinformation battling another form of misinformation. One set of misguided people battling another set of misguided people. NetNeutrality is a concept that makes sense in a western context where carriers are basically monopolies. It's unbelievable how good arguments in one context, have been blindly applied to a completely unrelated context. Activists in the West (who's rep a…

Wow, such holier than thou attitude.

Anything thinking the problem is that the poor people aren't connected enough is seriously misinformed. India connected over 300mil people last year, and guess what, Facebook's effort only contributed ~1% of that number.

Not to mention, over the long term, the very real problem that the Facebook walled garden of apps would present in terms of opportunities for entrepreneurs is much more urgent in an emerging economy like India. India has tried (and is still trying) subsidies for the poor, that hasn't helped. Facebook wanted everyone to go through their platform before reaching those users. Will that help the guy from the small town who just created an app? No it won't.

So yeah, your condescending comparisons to Egypt and your "think of the poor!" argument is the exact same thing Zuckerberg said in his op-ed in Times of India. It didn't work then and it is not gonna work now.

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#70

Post by conceit » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 3:34 PM UTC

ikeboy wrote: post #47

toyg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The internet is not "a product", it is an essential utility. Rich people pay more than poor people for roads, but they get the same access to them as poor people. This is what the internet should be like. Historically, price differentiation for network infrastructure has been due to costs, not artificial market segmentation; it's important this continues to be the case for the majority of net citizens. As we've seen…

If that's the case, then let providers discriminate all they want, and have the government set up their own competition that does what they want. I'm perfectly within my rights to buy up a bunch of land, and build a road on it, and only let rich people drive on it. There are plenty of examples, e.g. exclusive clubs and the like. I'm allowed to sell water at whatever price I want: but if I charge too much, cities will…

It's the other way around, let facebook build a separate, proprietary infrastructure for their service. I'm not sure if a real Private Network or a virtual PN would be the better comparison.