7 ms·

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 whe

by cmadan 11y ago

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.

dingo_bat 11y ago
>no ISPs are implementing slow/fast lanes How do we know that? And even if they aren't, they will start doing it. This was a great chance to disallow all of that crap but instead TRAI has been tempted to regulate voice apps, a task that they are simply incapable of performing effectively anyway.
- cmadan 11y ago
  The new regulations by TRAI does not mention anything about regulation of voice apps (or about slow/fast lanes). I think you have misinterpreted the comment by SaveTheInternet.in. What they're saying is that while differential pricing has been dealt with in accordance with NN principles, there are two more battles which are going to be fought i.e. i. Defeating the proposal to regulate voice apps ii. Ensuring that no slow/fast lanes are there on the Internet. Its a "yes, we won a major battle but the war is not over yet" caution. Not an indictment on what TRAI is going to do for voice apps & slow/fast lanes.
  - sandGorgon 11y ago
    I would argue that the voip issue is not a neutrality one but a national security one. The reason for obtaining a license us not financial but law enforcement oversight. I'm not justifying either way, but I don't think it has anything to do with neutrality in its economic sense
    - cmadan 11y ago
      The proposal to regulate VoIP apps is before TRAI only because of lobbying by telcos who are still in denial over the world moving towards data and want to hold onto their voice call revenues. I'm not sure what purpose licensing will serve from a law enforcement perspective. Banning VoIP apps that refuse to apply for a license will be like playing whack-a-mole as people can easily add a VPN to get around it or the service can intelligently route traffic to get around the ban.
      - vertex-four 11y ago
        On the other hand, unlicensed VoIP apps would not be allowed to advertise in India, whether that's on TV, billboards, newspapers, or popular Indian websites. They would likely not be allowed to be sold in the Indian locale of Google and Apple's app stores. A communications app that few have installed is close to useless - even in countries with significant freedom, we use Facebook Messenger, Hangouts, Whatsapp and Snapchat over alternatives not directly controlled by major companies, because the free alternatives don't have the funds to convince all your friends that they're legitimate.
        cmadan 11y ago
        Whatsapp has never done any advertising in India and had more users in India than Facebook before it was bought by Facebook. Indians don't have a very high trust barrier to overcome - NSA/privacy barely figures in the public discourse.
anoncow 11y ago
Definitely a step in the right direction, but there are plenty of ISPs who provide preferential treatment to Google by peering with their servers. YouTube HD videos stream without buffering on 512kbps connections. https://www.quora.com/I-am-from-Mumbai-I-have-an-Internet-connection-of-a-fairly-low-speed-I-get-the-normal-speed-while-surfing-or-downloading-some-files-But-I-get-high-speed-while-watching-YouTube-videos-or-downloading-from-a-torrent-or-Google-Drive-How-does-this-happen-and-can-I-get-the-high-speed-for-everything https://www.quora.com/I-am-from-Mumbai-I-have-an-Internet-co...
- devdas 11y ago
  Nothing stops anyone else from peering. There's no differential pricing involved here, just regular infrastructure.
  - sa1 11y ago
    While peering enables this, the real problem is that all these ISPs provide YouTube at a much higher speed than the rest of the web, which means that your bandwidth is not enough to stream videos without buffering for any other video site, while YouTube is always smooth. Peering should just be a step towards enabling ISPs to fulfill their bandwidth promises, not a justification for fast lane/slow lane.
- vram22 11y ago
  What's peering?
- ec109685 11y ago
  What does peering have to do with anything? 512kbs is 512kbs, no matter how far (within reason) you are from Google.
- rohmish 11y ago
  You can get around constant buffering with about 1Mbps and VP9 codec. You can't ever get HD streams with no buffering at 512. If you wait at start for it to move ahead, that is a different story. The reason why you still see the spinner even on 2-3 Megs connection is that although you ISP is saying that you will get 2-3 Mbps, the connection to YouTube streaming server you are fetching content from is notat that rate. You can use the "stats for nerds" option in the yt player to get aprox speed you are getting
mtgx 11y ago
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".
tzs 11y ago
So does this mean Wikipedia Zero will have to be shut down in India?

by cmadan 11y ago

dingo_bat 11y ago

>no ISPs are implementing slow/fast lanes How do we know that? And even if they aren't, they will start doing it. This was a great chance to disallow all of that crap but instead TRAI has been tempted to regulate voice apps, a task that they are simply incapable of performing effectively anyway.

cmadan 11y ago
The new regulations by TRAI does not mention anything about regulation of voice apps (or about slow/fast lanes). I think you have misinterpreted the comment by SaveTheInternet.in. What they're saying is that while differential pricing has been dealt with in accordance with NN principles, there are two more battles which are going to be fought i.e. i. Defeating the proposal to regulate voice apps ii. Ensuring that no slow/fast lanes are there on the Internet. Its a "yes, we won a major battle but the war is not over yet" caution. Not an indictment on what TRAI is going to do for voice apps & slow/fast lanes.
- sandGorgon 11y ago
  I would argue that the voip issue is not a neutrality one but a national security one. The reason for obtaining a license us not financial but law enforcement oversight. I'm not justifying either way, but I don't think it has anything to do with neutrality in its economic sense
  - cmadan 11y ago
    The proposal to regulate VoIP apps is before TRAI only because of lobbying by telcos who are still in denial over the world moving towards data and want to hold onto their voice call revenues. I'm not sure what purpose licensing will serve from a law enforcement perspective. Banning VoIP apps that refuse to apply for a license will be like playing whack-a-mole as people can easily add a VPN to get around it or the service can intelligently route traffic to get around the ban.
    - vertex-four 11y ago
      On the other hand, unlicensed VoIP apps would not be allowed to advertise in India, whether that's on TV, billboards, newspapers, or popular Indian websites. They would likely not be allowed to be sold in the Indian locale of Google and Apple's app stores. A communications app that few have installed is close to useless - even in countries with significant freedom, we use Facebook Messenger, Hangouts, Whatsapp and Snapchat over alternatives not directly controlled by major companies, because the free alternatives don't have the funds to convince all your friends that they're legitimate.
      - cmadan 11y ago
        Whatsapp has never done any advertising in India and had more users in India than Facebook before it was bought by Facebook. Indians don't have a very high trust barrier to overcome - NSA/privacy barely figures in the public discourse.

anoncow 11y ago

Definitely a step in the right direction, but there are plenty of ISPs who provide preferential treatment to Google by peering with their servers. YouTube HD videos stream without buffering on 512kbps connections. https://www.quora.com/I-am-from-Mumbai-I-have-an-Internet-connection-of-a-fairly-low-speed-I-get-the-normal-speed-while-surfing-or-downloading-some-files-But-I-get-high-speed-while-watching-YouTube-videos-or-downloading-from-a-torrent-or-Google-Drive-How-does-this-happen-and-can-I-get-the-high-speed-for-everything https://www.quora.com/I-am-from-Mumbai-I-have-an-Internet-co...

devdas 11y ago
Nothing stops anyone else from peering. There's no differential pricing involved here, just regular infrastructure.
- sa1 11y ago
  While peering enables this, the real problem is that all these ISPs provide YouTube at a much higher speed than the rest of the web, which means that your bandwidth is not enough to stream videos without buffering for any other video site, while YouTube is always smooth. Peering should just be a step towards enabling ISPs to fulfill their bandwidth promises, not a justification for fast lane/slow lane.
vram22 11y ago
What's peering?
ec109685 11y ago
What does peering have to do with anything? 512kbs is 512kbs, no matter how far (within reason) you are from Google.
rohmish 11y ago
You can get around constant buffering with about 1Mbps and VP9 codec. You can't ever get HD streams with no buffering at 512. If you wait at start for it to move ahead, that is a different story. The reason why you still see the spinner even on 2-3 Megs connection is that although you ISP is saying that you will get 2-3 Mbps, the connection to YouTube streaming server you are fetching content from is notat that rate. You can use the "stats for nerds" option in the yt player to get aprox speed you are getting

mtgx 11y ago

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".

tzs 11y ago

So does this mean Wikipedia Zero will have to be shut down in India?