<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<br>
<br>
Roland Perry wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:72ZXffWNiqRNFASs@internetpolicyagency.com"
type="cite">In message <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:4D4697B7.5060207@itforchange.net"><4D4697B7.5060207@itforchange.net></a>, at
16:36:31 on Mon, 31 Jan 2011, parminder
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> writes
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Net neutrality is being violated wholesale on
wireless networks. No one is noticing much less complaining. One top
telecom rather pointedly calls it 'pay per site' tariff plan. see
<br>
</blockquote>
><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.tatadocomo.com/pay-per-site.aspx">http://www.tatadocomo.com/pay-per-site.aspx</a>
<br>
<br>
That seems to be a "pay for volume of traffic" plan (eg 200MB for 10R's
- approx $0.20), which I thought we'd agreed was acceptable. [And about
a tenth of what you'd pay in Europe].
<br>
</blockquote>
I am not at all able to understand how you see a pay-per-site plan as a
'pay -for-volume-of traffic' plan (volume being a site-neutral
concept). This is moving towards a cable TV scenario - just many many
more channels. An IGC member forwarded the enclosed graphic to me which
is quite illustrative. It had come out in the US many years ago as a
kind of dooms day prediction.... Now the doom looks so close by, almost
already there.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:72ZXffWNiqRNFASs@internetpolicyagency.com"
type="cite"><br>
Although the normal rate is 2.5GB for 65R's, which is cheaper! Do they
block the listed sites if you are on the normal rate - I agree that
wouldn't be fair.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
PK</pre>
</body>
</html>