When it comes to Internet the difference in consumption can be massive. So when the bandwidth is limited the only way the operators can allow it is by reducing quality. (We have seen this from our research. The quality of limited packages is always superior to that of ‘unlimiteds’)

The analogy is the hotel compromising the quality of food so that everyone consumes ‘unlimited’ quantity. Is this fair by those who eat less? Why should they face a quality drop in their food for somebody to eat more?

Also note that buffets are possible only under certain conditions and not always. It is feasible only above a certain level of demand and only when supply is high enough. Will a hotel ever run a buffet with limitations in the supply? I doubt.

Let me ask a question: Is there anything seriously wrong in asking everyone to pay depending upon the quantity of food they consume?

The market WILL take care of the operators’ ‘discrimination mechanisms’ but after paying for one ISPs service we need the regulator to ensure that the ISP does not try to rip off the customer and imposing a cap is certainly that.

Someone had said not so long ago that 640k should be enough memory for anyone! How can you say 250GB is ‘reasonable’ or not? One subscribes to an ‘unlimited’ package to get unlimited use and no one should be allowed to change the game from a test match to a 20/20 mid-game.

FYI, its not free lunch they people want. Buffet lunches do exist and people who PAY for them expect a buffet and would not accept restrictions on the number of visits to the buffet table or on the amount of chicken they can serve themselves. If they sell the package as unlimited then how can they ethically change the conditions (even though the small print says they can)?

Like in any field we need regulators to ensure that no anti-competitive practices take place either.

I wonder if you can remember our ‘pioneering’ ISP, Lanka Internet. They were pioneering in more ways than one. They offered a dial-up package (circa. 1996) which was proclaimed to be unlimited for Rs. 1500/-. After sometime they realised the stupidity in offering a service for that price and started to profile users and shift high users to a different modem pool (which had TWO modems). The idea was to frustrate them to unsubscribe and they succeeded. LISL got a lot of bad rep among users because of this.

Sometime later Celltel offered something called an Office Package with rates that were the lowest at that time and after a period they suddenly announced that they were moving ALL the users to different (much more expensive) packages. They had realised that people were using their phones a lot because of the cheap rates.

In both these instances the govt. did not do anything to protect the consumer. The users were inconvenienced and had to pay to get new packages as it was not possible to continue on the same packages.

Lanka internet is no more now and Celltel is relegated to 3rd place from its market leader position in the late 1990s. Maybe the attitudes of these companies were wrong and they deserved what they got but one needs the regulator to protect us in the short term.

I will give a detailed response to your comment elsewhere, but two quick questions now.

1. Do you seriously think 250 GB an ‘unreasonable’ cap (even for a power user in USA)?

2. If the market takes care of the operators’ so called ‘discrimination mechanisms’ as you say, why we need further regulation? Why bring govt to the equation?

Indeed the FCC should allow the market to develop. In a market full of ISPs the one’s who impose arbitrary and unreasonable caps will eventually fail or fail to grow similar to what happened with Dialog WiMAX and its FUP.

Please note that the relevant details of the grant call is available on the SIRCA website: http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/sci/sirc/sirca/home.html

Also, participants are required to indicate their interest or direct any enquires by sending an email to sirca@ntu.edu.sg.

Thank you!

SIRCA Secretariat

I am not a technical guy to comment on how routers treat packets iequally and so on but I know that when you give the right to decide to companies, specially in countries like Sri Lanka with seemingly poor regulatory structures, they will ALWAYS misuse it to benefit themselves.

Give the right to restrict some types of traffic to an ISP and they will do it in the name of assuring fast connections to all when what they actually should be doing is increasing bandwidth. Restricting the growth of the new multimedia rich internet is not the way forward.

Take for example our much respected company which promises to bring the future, today;

Initially they advertised their new broadband service as unlimited but at bottom of the advert in small print was mention of a fair use policy which if you took the trouble to dig out from their website said that users with a 1Mbps connection could transfer only 4GB of data per 30-day period before the connection was throttled. Basically, if you exceeded 4GB, you were left with a 3500/- a month dial-up connection!! The irony is “Why would you need a 1Mbps unlimited connection if you couldn’t use it. Its like selling a Land Rover to someone and telling, “The only offroading you can do is on the pavement!”

Not many people seem to have been stupid enough to signup because they recently had to relaunch.

The openly stated FUP was no more present. Even the guys in customer care state that the FUP has been removed. Closer reading of the fineprint at the back of the application form reveals that the clauses of the FUP are now incorporated into the boring and long terms and conditions that no one ever bothers to read….Dishonest? I think so!!

If they don’t have the international bandwidth to offer unlimited broadband connections, they should not do so. Better still, they should buy the bandwidth without offering the sun and actually providing only a 40W light bulb! One cannot provide the Future, Today with a 40Mbps international backbone.

No ISP should be allowed to restrict access/ speed based on profiling of users or the traffic they generate. If its not economically feasible for that company to offer unlimited packages, then they should not do so until it becomes feasible. I can bet anything that its well within thier capacity to offer adequate bandwidth AND be profitable (but maybe not a profit of Rs. 12B a year). Even Sariputtas and Moggallanas are businessmen at heart and bottomline is the only thing that drive their decisions.

With no proper regulation, companies try to maximise profit at the expense of quality service and the consumer.

What if an ISP decides to block traffic coming from competitors? Can anyone dismiss this scenario as impossible?

The FCC should be applauded for ruling that Comcast’s practice is illegal. I only wish our TRC was as strong…

For the most part, it’s the same old arguments that are being recycled. This recent opposing views debate might be of relevance.

If there’s sufficient competition in the market, net neutrality is and will be non-issue. It’s a non-issue now even without sufficient competition in places like SL.Pissing off customers is a bad business strategy, unless you have monopoly control. The entire net-neutrality debate is just (nonsensical) American-progressive worry about the free market.

Thanks for this thought-provoking post which looks at this vital issue from a Sri Lankan perspective.

My own take on the matter is here - http://ict4peace.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/net-neutrality-economics-and-implications-for-ict4peace-and-odr/

Sanjana