Re: Fwd: IAC's response to TRAI's Consultation Paper no. 2/2015 "OTT Services"

Tarun

1) Facebook or Twitter don't discriminate while circulating message
posts by their registered users. When Firstpost.com published Mahesh
Murthy's article it was a conscious editorial decision to do so as
"Politics>News".

2) TRAI has solicited reasoned / knowledgeable comments from
reasonably educated people who know the RFC process. What is being
encouraged to be filed to TRAI now is mindless / cyclostyled "spam" to
push through somebody's agenda and obscure the real issues and prevent
any sane voices from getting through.

If there were any sane people/ affected consumers, they would object
to the deeply flawed process being followed by TRAI - as IAC has done
- instead of participating and whitewashing it with their
participation and being complicit in the 'haramipana' being done..

3) Net-Neutrality is not the reason why Facebook/Google/Twitter are
dominant. And the judge who signed the 66-A judgment does not agree
with you that these 3 can service the "millions" of complaints they
allegedly received under the ITIGR 2011 - thereby causing him to be so
kind to them in a PIL filed by a well connected law student.

Sarbajit

On 4/22/15, Tarun Dua <lists-w/I/[email protected]> wrote:
> I did not imply or impute that you are a Mukesh Ambani associate or minion.
>>
>
> Good.
>
>>
>> I posted the link to your article accompanied by text describing that a
>> news portal associated with Shri Mukesh Ambani, ie. Firstpost.com, was
>> circulating articles encouraging people to "spam" the TRAI's consultation
>> process on a non-issue like "net neutrality" over mobile phone networks.
>>
> Oh, and you know even Facebook & Twitter are circulating articles
> encouraging people to send email to TRAI.
>
> And why do you call it spam. Spam has the characteristic of being
> un-solicited. TRAI has solicited views from public.
>
>
>> There is a concerted campaign by foreign interests to get certain
>> beneficial provisions of the IT Act disabled, directly or indirectly.
>>
>
> Lack of net-neutrality laws helps foreign giants like
> Facebook/Google/Twitter abuse their dominant market position more than any
> domestic Internet centric businesses.
>>
>>
>> The first step to this was taken in the SC's 66-A judgement - which under
>> cover of 66-A effectively disabled the ITIGR 2011 in its concluding paras
>> without any reasons - except that Google and Facebook were overloaded
>> with
>> complaints being made to them under these rules.
>>
> With due respect, Googles and Facebooks of the world have all the financial
> muscle in the world to be able to handle an "overload" of complaints they
> were supposedly deluged with. On the other hand it is the anemic & capital
> constrained domestic entrepreneur(s) who face an un-certain regulatory
> environment.
>
>
>
>
>> The net neutrality frenzy being whipped up, is only a smokescreen for
>> more
>> such skullduggery. And that Reliance Jio is the largest "datapipe"
>> waiting
>> to be activated makes it more interesting.
>>
>
> Not buying your conspiracy theory, I don't see the point you are making,
> perhaps the point doesn't exist at all.
>
> Net Neutrality debate is happening because it concerns common people like
> us who have no access to levers of power and are trying to run our
> startups/small businesses in an environment of capital constraints and
> un-certain regulation.
>
> Also you are wrong about Reliance Jio being the largest "datapipe" to be
> activated. The largest un-activated and un-used "datapipe" happens to be
> BSNL+MTNL+Powergrid Tel+RailTel+GailTel in India.
>
> Regards
> -Tarun
>