Even they are putting this FUP if you dont even download that specific limit. I just literally killed a customer care guy ! Sorry for him but am literally paying 1k for just 30 kbps speed al day round

Where is the value for money ? Is there any way we can put a petition to these idiots ?

now tthis fair policy applies cap of 25 gb and then the speed is 256 kb that means download speed is 25 kbps.
.i usally download it in 3days.so what am i getting a rs 199 rs plan of 256 unlimited for 27 days .this is bullshit.
and anyways that 1 mbps unlimited in reality does have a limit.so whats fair in that

well put !

User A: Requires min. downloading but good speeds

User B: Require heavy downloading, speed does not matter much.

So ISP’s must seggregate users in the above format and charge accordingly.

if User A browse internet without too much downloading, he should go for limited plans with high speed. (Ex. BSNL 1 GB for Rs. 250, speed upto 2 MBPS)

If user B, needs unlimited downloading, let him have it (Ex. BSNL U/L Home for Rs. 750, max. speed 256 kbps)

In second case, there should not be a need for FUP as you are already giving him lower speeds and he is well aware of that!

FUP in my opinion is one sided and favours those who do limited downloading which allows these mean ISPs to have more no. of users with limited resources.

The focus must be on increasing resources. Allow foreign players if possible and improve India’s 115th ranking.

I always respected TATA for their over-all quality of products and service’s offered are such. If so I would request you to kindly include this statement prominently in all services offered by TATA, OTHERWISE under present law of land is clearly clarified by the judiciary clauses.

S. Chatterjee

Seriously, your hate is misdirected. Don’t hate other people for using a resource they are paying for in full. Hate your ISP for making false promises to you, and not delivering to you what you are paying for.

Dont you think that sticking to contention ratio will improve (hopefully) the experience.

If you are committing to provide 10 users with 256kbps unlimited internet, then you better have a bandwidth of 10 x 256 = 2560kbps. Otherwise, you are committing a fraud upon your customers, and not providing them with the service you legally bound yourself to give them.

Seriously, if Airtel / Tata / Reliance are honestly having issues of scarcity of bandwidth (I seriously doubt that), then they should just discontinue unlimited plans.

The tragedy isn’t of the commons – it’s of our technological future.

How do you explain the current slow connection that I pay for (in the name of unlimited plan?)??

I really fail to understand why so much of hue/cry – when I know that I am currrently overpaying for the current speed (that I get, which is not even near 128 Kbps) and with the new regulation, things hopefully will improve.

it becomes unlimited for you.

And it still won’t be unlimited for me because of the data transfer speed cap. So there is a known limit that comes with every unlimited plan.

Also, the moment I and 100 others buy an “unlimited” plan, we pay substantially higher prices than regular prices, so the ISP can acquire more resources to meet the demand. Can’t it?

Here is how tragedy of commons is applicable (let me explain on ashish’s behalf) –
The moment you and 100 others buy unlimited plan, you are ready to exploit the resource. it becomes unlimited for you.
If one guy starts downloading movies/torrents, doesnt hurt others. 10 guys do it and the resource is exploited and becomes not-so-useful for others who don’t exploit it.

“This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available (which may be a wider class of individuals than those who are exploiting it).”

- Clear or still want to reach out to your text-book?

But I’ll humour you – pray tell me, what are these “practical aspects” related to the tragedy of the commons that’s applicable here?

The limits defined for TATA look quite fair to me; and I agree with you on Sify’s unlimited connection being rather slow. Specially at 10 PM it takes a huge dip and stars crawling, I wonder if that’s the reason they have a special plan thats 50% costiler but promises to double your speed in night.

In India you pay approximately same for a 256Kbps (so called) unlimited connection to what US/Europe pays for 4Mbps connection. And They call India is much cheaper in all respect.

Why to impose a limitation when customer has to sacrifice the speed for allowed download. You can get him a 2Mbps connection with 150MB limit for Rs 125 but still he shells out 1000 Rs for 256 Kbps so that he don’t have to worry about running over the usage limit. Wait, and you will soon see a new costlier unlimited Plan for 256 Kbps with no limitation whatsoever.

That would mean no unlimited plans – all plans come with download caps (since it’s not possible to really put a price on “unlimited” usage); and SLAs that force refunds or other penalties for ISPs if up/down speeds are less than promised for a specified amount of time (so that ISPs are forced to model usage of their network appropriately). The most important thing, though, is no retroactive provisions. If you have a plan, both you and the ISP will abide by those conditions for its duration. When the contract is up for renewal, any conditions are fair game.

Of course, this assume a competitive ISP market, which may not always be the case. Even if the customer has a few different providers (who are not acting as a cartel, and it’s TRAI’s job to ensure that they don’t), though, these rules should work.