Nishant Sharma, WiFi Security Researcher, Consultant, Firmware developer
Mise à jour il y a 139w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 265 et de vues de réponses 1.3m
You are missing the main point here.
Il est équipé d' not about providing free WiFi but about restricting access to some particular websites and services. The starbucks WiFi will allow you to access almost all website except blocked by regulatory authority (they may control the bandwidth but that is for fair sharing of bandwidth i.e. one customer should not use all of it). They never said that you can use facebook, gmail and whatsapp for free but if you want to use google+, yahoo and hike you need to pay.
Net neutrality is not about giving thing free or paid, its about treating everyone equally. Facebook free basics was only providing some of websites for free so it was violating net neutrality. Hence, TRAI rejected it. As far as free neutral WiFi is concerned, google is already providing that with RailTel and nobody has a problem with them.
It is not fair. By providing some websites free, you are indirectly pushing users to free set of websites which will send their competitors (especially start up companies) out of business.
You can blame Starbucks if you can only access some sites on their WiFi otherwise not.
Edit: Anonymous decided to take the discussion forward by providing his views/concerns in the comments. I thank him for that. And to improve the answer, instead of addressing those in comments, I am adding it here.
Anonymous: Can you access Netflix movies without paying extra? Can you say ISP is promoting YouTube (free) over Netflix (paid)?
Réponse: Netflix vs YouTube is a complete different class. They are end service providers. Its their wish to charge and not to charge. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Problem with Facebook's free basics is that its not the end service provider who is providing stuff free/paid. Its the enabler (i.e. ISP).
For example, think of this as a fun activity complex with YouTube being a Park and Netflix being a museum. Park is not asking you to buy any tickets because they are making money from the advertisement posters pasted on their walls. The advertisers are happy to pay the park for that. Hence, park don't need money from visitors. Whereas, museum being a totally different place decides not to paste advertisements but to charge the visitors (who are happy to pay) for its operations. Both are happy with their business strategy and it will not bother anyone. But, suppose the road that you used to come to this complex from your home charges you as per the place you are visiting. Now, that is a problem. If the road authority tells me that if I want to visit Netflix museum I need not to pay anything but if I want to visit another museum say FretFlix (which also charges same as netflix museum and provide same experience) I have to pay extra. It is obvious that if I am not that big fan of the FretFlix, I will go for Netfilx to save money. This is wrong. This is the only problem people had with free basics.
Anonymous: Don't preach about Net Neutrality. You should have a problem if ISP prioritize free basic IP packets over yours. This is not net neutrality issue - this is business tactic issue.
Réponse: Yup. It is a business tactic. But, every kind of tactic need to be fair up to a level. This tactic will kill those services which are not in the free basic set but their competitors are. And even if the entry to that set was allowed for anyone by paying money, I would have considered it to be a little fair. But, its not open for all and facebook will always govern who can get in and who can't. Right now they are asking for categorized payment, later they can come up with new "business tactic" to provide priority to the packets as per the payment category. So, it is better to stop them now.
Anonymous: Besides, differentiated pricing is already there in ISP - 1 Mbps, 2 Mbps ... Your ISP drops your packets is you exceed your speed limit (even if the backbone is free). If you imagined Internet is a heaven of equality, sorry it is not.
Réponse: Yup. They need to drop if you are sending more data than the bandwidth. This is a necessary step to ensure fair sharing as well as network function. But, when they drop these packets they don't check if those packets were to/from gmail or YouTube (except the standard QoS tagged packets as they are treated differently based on type of content i.e. VoIP packets have higher priority than a simple data packet and may be peer-peer torrent traffic). They just drop them. If they are doing selective dropping then you can accuse them for violating of net neutrality.
Anonymous: How about CDNs? The ISP serves a set of customers faster than others using CDNs. Where is the neutrality?
Réponse: Again a bad example. ISPs don't do anything to boost CDNs. CDNs are distributed content delivery servers which means they are everywhere. If the website you are accessing, is paying for or having a CDN, then the nearest server will deliver the data to your machine. ISP don't do anything in that. If the server is near obviously you will get a lower load time. Now, using CDN is a business decision, if your service has became so popular, then you can also buy CDN support from providers like akamai. They will also serve your customers. If you are startup then mostly you will not need a CDN in beginning.
Anonymous: Note: WiFi is a poor technology choice to reach 100s of millions of Indians - what google is doing is lip service. A access points in selected places.
Réponse: May be. But, world thinks differently. Even your esteemed telecom providers are moving to WiFi. Yes, big telecom companies are already in deployment and testing phase to deploy their access points in public places and then make their customers use those even for calls. Cellular spectrum is expensive man and now with increase in hunger for bandwidth, it is not possible for them to serve all the people. This is know as cellular WiFi offloading. I am not making it up. Search about it.
I hope now you are convinced that TRAI has done a good job. If not, please feel free to post again in comments. I will again respond.
Edit: Session 2 with anonymous
Anonymous: A set of businesses collaborate to provide a service - ISP, content providers, content creators, system integrator, infrastructure providers, equipment provider, caching service providers, call center providers, technology providers. The money you pay for the services is distributed among the various entities by business agreements. I don't care who gets paid and how they make money. That free market will decide and weed out the nonviable ones. It is a service from my perspective.
Réponse: If it is your perspective then I don't have any problem with that. I am not trying to change your mind but justifying the action of TRAI.
Anonymous: For example, both the ISP and Cable operator provide a physical wire to your homes. They both provide content. You pay the cable operator for the content you get without arguments. Why can't you do the same for the ISP+Netflix+HBO? (i.e pay the ISP for what content you get)
Réponse: ISP and cable operator. Seriously? Again a wrong example. Your ISP pay to upper tier ISP for links (not for websites accessed) whereas your cable operator need to take subscription of that channel first, then they can broadcast it to their network. Ask your cable operator. They are charging you more because they themselves are paying more. Its not due to the fact that the data is from a specific source.
Anonymous: Some provide free service with ads, some provide premium service without ads. Some provide CDNs, buy BW from ISP to improve their service - both exist and compete for the space. It does not matter whether you pay your ISP or Content aggregator (Netflix, Youtube) or Movie Studios directly. End of the day, what matters is what you get for the money you pay (or available for free).
Réponse: Again, its your opinion and I don't have anything against you having an opinion. Most of us (anti free basics people), don't think in this manner and policy makers are also with us.
Anonymous: PS: Don't argue with technology differences or purposes of business - that is only artificial distinction created by regulatory authorities of last century.
Réponse: Lol. It is not artificial. If they are recognized by regulatory authority late then it doesn't mean they are artificial. Business models are real. They are essential and most of times they dictate the success or failure of venture/product.
Anonymous: If facebook/ISP (a bunch of businesses) has found a way to bring free internet to poor people of India - it is a deal between them and the people they serve. Why should unrelated parties object to it? The answer now seems like excuses to stop poor Indians from getting the benefit of internet.
Réponse: We (people against free basics) are not against free internet access. We are only against free access to some specific website (hence partiality). Most of people including govt. regulatory body think so.
Anonymous: On a technology note, if you believe WiFi has the reach, bandwidth and is economical, please try switching off cellular network in your phone and use only WiFi based services such as Skype, Voice, WhatsApp for a month. Let me know how it goes.
Réponse: I never said WiFi is self sufficient for all kind of communication. I said that due to rise in subscribers and demand in bandwidth, 4G bands alone are not sufficient. Hence, telecom operators are trying to create a WiFi infra in public places. The will push the people to that WiFi (in range) and allocate the 4G spectrum used by that customer to other one (who is not in WiFi range). And its not my opinion. Search for it. It is already deployed in US and in next 6-9 months should be operational in India.
It seems to me that you have already ran out of arguments. So, I won't reply now if you don't have valid points. I hope this answer will provide majority public's perspective to you and people like your opinions.
Edit: Session 3 with anonymous
Anonymous: For them it is OK if poor Indians die as a result not receiving weather alerts or location of medical center in a neighboring village or get notified of free medicines distributed by government - which they would have if they had Free Basics. They don't care. They don't care to provide alternate way to provide any of these services - it does not matter to them - they don't need these government services.
Réponse: You are again thinking about it in wrong manner. I have following points as concluding remarks:
- Facebook is not extending the network reach. They are just providing free access to some websites over Reliance's network. Which means the target audience has already access to mobile 2G network their and as far as I know, people who has a phone should be able to afford a 2G data pack. If they are not then they have bigger problems than internet access. I would have appreciated the gesture if it was not limited to some websites.
- Weather alerts are already provided by Govt. using SMS. You can subscribe to those and get updates. And it is much more simple than doing this through internet as SMS is already a familiar thing. Now please for the love of god don't bring the argument that what if the farmers are illiterate and can't read the SMS. If that is the case, I don't think internet will be of their use then. Also, govt, provides these SMS alerts even in Hindi (not sure about regional languages).
- Govt. is already connecting every village with broadband. Yup, it will take time but when it will happen, the people will have a better quality internet service and that too without restrictions.
- We are not anti India or anti growth. We are just pro freedom and neutrality.
I will not reply to anonymous's comments now. Everyone else is welcome to put forward their views.
Susheel Karam, Tech Lover // Internet Addict // Blogger at Digicular.com
Répondu il y a 140w · L'auteur dispose de réponses 108 et de vues de réponses 497k
You are not getting the Key point here. The 2 cases are not at all comparable.
Starbucks Free Wifi = The actual internet. You can access any website you want and even access and buy from Cafe coffee day's website (competitors)
Free basics by facebook - Not an actual internet. As you can access only those services/websites that are allowed and listed by facebook not other sites like Twitter or Google (Competitors)
It is totally a irrelevant comparison between both services.