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

Hi Nikhil

Cool.

My 2 paise, This is a deeply insidious and wide-ranging RFC from TRAI
and trivialising this RFC as "net neutrality" is dangerous and
ultimately counter-productive.

Sarbajit

On 4/22/15, Nikhil Pahwa <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Sarbajit,
>
> my apologies for the standup comedy comment. That was a personal comment
> and I shouldn't have made it.
>
> My limited point is that whatever we are doing at savetheinternet.in isn't
> funded. Some of the volunteers have given us their domain names (which they
> had booked earlier after airtel began charging separately for VoIP) to use,
> there's a tech team that has set the site up - all volunteers. We're not an
> organization, and this is entire a volunteer effort, that we are all
> dedicating our own time and personal resources towards, because were very
> worried by the TRAI paper. That 'Mukesh Ambani's minions' comment is
> completely unfounded, and would be impossible to ever substantiate because
> it isn't true. Just because FirstPost carried a point of view (incidentally
> so have many other publications), doesnt make us anyones minions.
>
> Nikhil
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:46 PM, 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> India-gii mailing list
>> India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
>> https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii
>>
>>
>