Dinesh A. Joshi wrote: > Pankaj Jangid wrote: > >> I just tweeted this http://twitter.com/jangid/status/1418661430. >> >> spread it. >> >> > > Geez...grow up man. You post to a mailing list about your tweet? :P > I think the tweet is very relevant to this thread. In fact, tweets are good way to spread the message and turn the sentiments against such things. If you have a larger following on tweeter, do the same. > Anyway, theres nothing false about Reliance's advertising. The plan *is* > unlimited. Its just that you have to pay beyond a certain usage. They're > not going to cut you off. They will simply charge you for the extra > usage. ( Check out my other reply to Saswata. It should make this clear ). > Nopes, you are wrong. The table clearly says Usage Unlimited. In other plans, there is usage limit specified in GB. So where it says unlimited, it means that there is no limit on data usage. They can not claim it was meant for time. > They distinguish between a "Flat Rate" plan and "Unlimited plan". It > also depends on what definition they use. Their definition of unlimited > isn't misleading or wrong. Also, they have clearly marked it and > specified it in the fine print so its a losing case for the consumer. > There is a *** marked against it and the cap is mentioned, but it still amounts to false advertising and MRTP or TRAI can pull up the company on this matter. It has been declared earlier by MRTP in cases that you can not have a misleading headline and expect people to read the fine print, specially in case of passing advts - eg hoarding, etc. A good lawyer will get the judge to tear the company. > Lastly, theres a difference between - Unlimited, Unmetered, Flat fee / > rate plan. > > What you can pull them up for is putting *any* limits at all. As I see > it they are creating an artificial scarcity of resources. We can show > the court how much international bandwidth these people have and how > much the country's infrastructure supports. They're hoarding it and > selling it and at an artificially high price. If we convince the courts > that theres plenty for everybody and yet they're showing as if theres > scarcity we can not only get higher speeds, unmetered bandwidth but > maybe get the ISPs to compensate ( monetarily ) to the long time consumers. > Its a business decision of each company what they will charge, as long as they are communicating it clearly to the consumer. You can however, make a complaint under MRTP to the competition commission if you can show there is cartelling or if 1 company who has the bandwidth is preventing others from using it. TRAI rules also have similar clauses, I think its under ISP-II status (meant for infrasturcture provider, not the traditional ISP). I remember reading it. In fact, I also remember there is a case being investigated on the same matter between reliance and WEMESEA 2 on being denied additional landing station rights by Tatas. > I remember clearly that TRAI mandated a 70% cut in leased lines a while > back and that had ZERO impact on the costs for the end consumer. All it > did was fattened up the grossly high profit margins of these money > grabbing telcos. Atleast I didnt see a 70% cut in my broadband bill. > Well, all my clients got their leased line trariffs cut massively after that and it has not gone up since. A local leased line (short distance) from Kanjur to Lower Parel now cost us less than 5K per month for a 2mbps connection. It used to be more than 25K per month. 64K used to cost 10K per month. > - Dinesh >
-- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
