"That’s called business, by the way."/"That makes me smart."
23 minutes ago
“Because: Disneyland isn’t perfect; it’s just the happiest place on Earth.”
If corporate America pretty much has to make a profit by selling goods to Americans by Americans, this means that corporate America has an intrinsic interest in the productivity of Americans and in their ability to consume. Now, productivity plus consumption is prosperity, I mean, that’s pretty much all it is, so if you have an economy that’s set up that way then corporate America pretty much wants what the rest of us want, and for decades in this country, roughly from 1940 to 1975 there was an arrangement in this country where things were set up that way. It wasn’t perfect, but there was, broadly speaking, a structural alignment between what was in the interests of big corporations in this country and what was in the interest of the average American.No, I can’t sign on to this. No “New, New Deal.”
Shermer suggested to me that we try a scientific experiment, gassing dogs in the manner the Jews were supposedly gassed at Auschwitz, using the type of cyanide gas that was available in 1944.
“You want to gas dogs?” I exclaimed. “We’ll be running Bow-wowschwitz” … when I recounted the conversation to my girlfriend, she came up with an equally good one: “Barkin’ Belsen.” All the same, I nixed the dog-gassing idea. All I needed was to have the animal rights people on my ass.
Noam Chomsky, a famous leftist American philosopher
town square for the global village
The telecom operators claim that these applications impact their revenues
The debate on Net neutrality, as it is called, has developed into a duel for the ownership cake. Why do we need owners for this wonderful realm? The question in itself is baffling.
The Net neutrality principle simply states that there should be no blocking, no throttling and no paid prioritisation of any lawful content on the Internet.
Though the recommendation of this committee pitches for a neutral Internet, it has proposed regulations on Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) OTTs
It suggests that arbitrages on regulations and pricing exist between operators and substitute service providing OTTs, which needs to be removed to provide a level-playing field for both.
It’s worth mentioning that operators are regulated on call tariff through interconnect charges, tariff ceiling for roaming calls, etc. Such regulations won’t ever allow genuine competition between conventional calling and VoIP calling. This calls for further deliberation on the “solution”.And will be! This is called “failing upward.”
While only domestic VoIP services are recommended for regulations, other services are not. It would be interesting to see how a line would be drawn among OTTs, since many offer multiple services packed in one.
The DoT committee has failed to address other issues such as data privacy. With OTTs holding huge consumer data, the issue of protecting consumers’ sensitive data is worth a mention. However, the regulator reviewing tariff plans on zero-rating before being launched in public is an optimistic step for consumer protection.
OTTs play a part in promoting Internet adoption and regulating OTTs on tariff may make the free services a paid service. This might impact the pace of OTT-driven Internet adoption. With the Internet penetration standing below 20 per cent, regulations might land a knockout punch on India’s digital inclusion mission.
A hurdle to Net neutrality also comes from the existing revenue models of Internet-based services. From Internet search to prioritising data packets on quality of service, the entire network is governed by payments made by companies to avail preferential treatment.
The power of choice should, in any case, rest with consumers and not the operators. Consumer demands vary according to individual preferences. For example, some consumers might settle for an average Internet speed, while others might not. Thus, differential services/paid prioritisation may be provided only on “consumer demand”, but it should be ensured that other services are not negatively impacted.
The operators highlight the need of capital expenditure for infrastructure and argue that OTTs, that impact their revenues, hinder their ability to invest on infrastructure. It is undeniable fact that OTTs rely on Internet service, and it’s equally their responsibility to let Internet breath for long. OTTs should lend a hand on building the foundation, for which the question that needs answer is “how”.
Thus, the Internet we use is nowhere close to being perfectly neutral.
We still have to safeguard it from the probable clutches of the prospective owners.
OTTs help getting new consumers on-board and also propel data revenues.
So operators should work out on economies of scale strategies rather than cribbing over the competition brought in by innovation.
If regulations seem the only solution, they shouldn’t be based on tagging prices on these apps. The idea is to promote the Internet, not to break it. The need is to make it robust, seamless and for everyone.