Topmounter
Sent By Grocery Clerks
join:2001-02-20
Evergreen, CO
 ·Cox HSI
| This is why...
...you don't want your government legislating how broadband service providers can and cannot do business.
The concept of "Net Neutrality" may appear on the surface to be a benevolent act on the part of a government for the betterment of all, but in the end, like most things the government gets involved in, it will just end up being a thinly guised method for the government to promote their own agenda and favor their friends, stifling competition and choice. |
|
IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ
| When is a ban a ban?
Want to bet that the Indian Gvt will now have to spend money trying to combat "work arounds". So from no revenue, they will go to a cost center.
They will also find that they are upsetting many multinational companies wwhich have moved large operations into India and use VoIP as their communications tool.
There is always unintended consequences of such actions...... |
|
FicmanS
Premium
join:2005-01-11
Brownsburg, IN
clubs: | reply to Topmounter
Re: This is why...
Big brother wants his cut... |
|
BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| reply to Topmounter
said by Topmounter  :...you don't want your government legislating how broadband service providers can and cannot do business. The concept of "Net Neutrality" may appear on the surface to be a benevolent act on the part of a government for the betterment of all, but in the end, like most things the government gets involved in, it will just end up being a thinly guised method for the government to promote their own agenda and favor their friends, stifling competition and choice. Dude take a look at how the government wanted to add a net tax last year or maybe a bit before.
They want to take money from as many places as possible. It's nothing to do with net neutrality.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
BladeMcCool
join:2006-10-02
Victoria, BC | reply to IanR
Re: When is a ban a ban?
The large companies will pay the fees ... it will save them money in red-tape avoidance. And it will still be cheaper for them to run the call centers out of Bangalore or wherever. |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | Taxes!
A 12% "service tax" and a 6% "VOIP revenue sharing fee??"
Wow! I didn't know the Democrats also got elected in India!
Adam |
|
phriday613
Your Avatar Is Nice... For Me To Poop On
Premium
join:2002-02-06
Eastchester, NY
clubs: | reply to BladeMcCool
Re: When is a ban a ban?
yeah really, I wonder how this will affect call centers located in India? |
|
rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL
1 edit | reply to Alpine
Re: Taxes!
What, do they think they are Chicago or something?
To help you keep the cost of taxes in perspective, I get a 19% discount on my cell phone bill through my little bro's employer. My plan is advertised at $35 a month. With the 19% discount my monthly bill is .... tada, $35 a month. Or to put it another way, the effective tax rate for cell phones here is 19%. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| India is...
... a ridiculous place, a hypocrisy-gone-wild place, this story is just another example.
My favorite story is when they lure you to outsource your operations or bring their staff here, mostly to cheap call centers and such (which is absolutely fine) but at the same time you cannot just go there and get a job, it's close to impossible because you'd be obviously better choice for many US and Western companies over there... free competition? Not so much, that's not their style, I don't know any Western HR company with available managerial workforce over there... |
|
JerryTongue
join:2003-04-01
Auburn, WA
| what cracks me up
what I find funny is skype was around before all these ISP's thought about VOIP. I used skype for gaming for some time, then because it worked so well for me it became a way for me like others used MSN messenger. I dont see how a ISP can now block it just because they want to now charge you for something that was free. You can say it's there line and they can control what goes over it but I see it as I pay for the Bandwidth and they shouldnt tell me how I use it unless I am running a server or something. Next they will be telling us we cant use hotmail anymore and we have to pay to read mail through there web site, and we now have to use there site as our home page, not what we choose. They all seem to be offering things that have been around for awhile that were free already. Also skype uses less Bandwidth than a regular phone, was cheaper than a regular phone and you could call all over the USA and Canada for free, now they want to stop you from using Skype and SELL you there VOIP. I wish so bad they used something in VOIP that came from skype and they could sue them for the use of it.. hahaha |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs:
 ·QuantumVoice
 ·AT&T Southeast
·RoadRunner Cable
| Pull the plug
With alot of AMERICA company's over there, that does tech support for VOIP and also bellsouth cant rememeber, why dont all the companies just pull out and give americas jobs. 
If there government is that stupid, time to make them pay by CLOSING UP SHOP THERE. |
|
Alpine
Premium
join:2000-01-11
Atlanta, GA | Huh? |
|
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
·Cox HSI
·Speakeasy
| reply to Topmounter
Re: This is why...
said by Topmounter :...you don't want your government legislating how broadband service providers can and cannot do business. Uh, no... This would be an example of why you don't want government in the position of being a competitor within a given service space.
said by Topmounter :The concept of "Net Neutrality" may appear on the surface to be a benevolent act on the part of a government for the betterment of all, but in the end, like most things the government gets involved in, it will just end up being a thinly guised method for the government to promote their own agenda and favor their friends, stifling competition and choice. And you get this from the topic at hand, how, exactly? Sounds like you're looking for any opportunity you can find to push your own bias, whether it's relevant or not.
-tom
--
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." -Louis D Brandeis |
|
IanR
join:2001-03-22
Madison, NJ
1 edit | reply to hayabusa3303
Re: Pull the plug
Yes this is the real unintened consequence.
The Indian Gvt is raising the cost of muultinationals doing business in India. They moved there in the first place because it was Safe, because there is an excellent educated workforce and because it's relatively inexpensive. At safe many companies were surprised to see the political bombings of late so now they don't consider India as safe as they once did, the educated workforce still exists but few are fooled by fake accents anymore and at inexpensive the costs are rising very very quickly. Instead of working to cap the costs the Indian Gvt is getting greedy, IMHO and looking for short term revenues.
All this service business moved from other location(s) to India and quite quickly. It can and will move away from India to other locations (including the USA) just as quickly. That would be a social disaster for the burgeoning middle class in India.
I would be interested to hear informed comments about the rising cost structure of multinationals doing busiensss in Inda and the rateof labor cost increases, b4 one considers new taxes even. |
|
wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
·BroadVoice
| reply to Topmounter
Re: This is why...
said by Topmounter :...you don't want your government legislating how broadband service providers can and cannot do business. The concept of "Net Neutrality" may appear on the surface to be a benevolent act on the part of a government for the betterment of all, but in the end, like most things the government gets involved in, it will just end up being a thinly guised method for the government to promote their own agenda and favor their friends, stifling competition and choice. I completely agree. "Net Neutrality" will only hurt consumers in the end. What most people (especially on this site) have trouble seeing is that the government should never regulate how carriers treat traffic on their networks. As you mentioned, it seems innocent enough from the half blind perspective the Net Neut's are pitching it, but once you peel back the covers a bit you can see how bad of an idea it really is. Look at what Lebanon did. Look at what Iran did. Requiring ISP's provide a set upload for their traffic isnt much different from requiring ISP's provide a specific level of service for their traffic. Its all relative, and all a BAD idea............
--
я люблю медведей! |
|
kyramilan
join:2006-11-26
Pensacola, FL
| reply to Topmounter
If they don't pay they don't play. India is a country and can pass whatever law they want. If Skype doesn't like, so???
If you don't think taxes are going to hit VOIP in the USA, you're nuts. I have a problem paying a real phone company so people can get cheap service with a VOIP like Vonage. I'm subsiziding their calls somewhere.  |
|
ossito16
join:2004-07-31
Whiting, IN
·RCN CABLE
| reply to kamm
Re: India is...
said by kamm :... a ridiculous place, a hypocrisy-gone-wild place, this story is just another example... It is so true, this place is insane. No company should do any business there. You name something bad and they have it at the extreme. Worse judicial system(you could wait 5 to 10 years before your case comes to trial), some the worst cases of torture, the caste system (far worse than any racism here in America, except for the deep south during & after slavery), plus they have weapons of mass destruction. And we attacked Saadam,lol. I hope people there find a backdoor to keep on using what they want. |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| reply to rmdir
Actually..
It sounds like you are using Verizon math! (see recent article)
So 19% off of $35 is $28.35.
The difference between $35 and $28.35 is $6.65.
$6.65 rounds to 23.5% of 28.35.
So the effective taxes on your bill is actually almost 24%!
Oh the fun you can have with numbers! |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to wifi4milez
Re: This is why...
Exactly HOW will net neutrality hurt the consumer. If I'm the consumer, I want an INTERNET CONNECTION. That's what net neutrality enforces. It FORCES the companies to provide an 'internet connection', not an AOL connection. If I wanted AOL's walled garden, I'd sign up for AOL.
Net Neutrality isn't just a good idea, it's a REQUIRED IDEA. If we don't stop the megacorps from imposing 'their' vision of what the internet is, we won't have the googles, the yahoo's, the utubes of the world. We won't have bittorrent. We won't have Vonage. We won't have ANY of the features that make the internet what it is today. The megacorp has one objective, and that's to rape the consumer for as much as possible, while providing the lowest level of service possible, for the highest price possible. If we don't have net netrality, plan on seeing an extra charge on your bill if you visit google. Don't kid yourselves, the executives of Verizon, AT&T, SBC, etc all want to charge MORE for LESS. They even state it in their press releases.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC
1 edit | reply to FicmanS
In some cases it's not even big brother. It can be the cousin, the uncle, the nephew or a friend of the country's leader that owns the existing long-distance or cell phone service. If a new comer starts to change the rules of the game, the relatives of the leader start to complain to him... and apparently he listens. |
|
