Re: [gaia] What if all phones were always on the Internet?

["El Khatib, Yehia (elkhatib)" <[e-mail]>]

Nice idea, Steve.

The selectivity is slowly becoming in the hand of the consumer, as with newer Android versions like you mentioned.

However, most services (read: majority of cloud-hosted services) are developed with an assumption of over provisioned networks. This results in "chatty application syndrome”, and becomes very apparent when you take said application and try to run it over a poor network. So my point is, developers could and perhaps should equip their services for deployment in poor network conditions. I wrote a short piece about this earlier in the year: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/~elkhatib/Docs/2015.11_ccis.pdf

/Yehia

--
Dr. Yehia Elkhatib
School of Computing & Communications
Lancaster University, LA1 4WA, UK
y.elkhatib <then add> lancaster.ac.uk
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/~elkhatib


From: gaia <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Steve Song <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday, 27 November 2015 12:05
To: gaia <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [gaia] What if all phones were always on the Internet?

Hi Arjuna,

It is already possible, on Android, to turn off background data updates and to do per-app tuning of background updates and data consumption in general.  What I would imagine is that when a phone runs out of data and finds itself in basic rate mode, then it would only update apps/services that have been actively selected by the user e.g. whatsapp, twitter, signal, telegram, FB messenger, email, browser, etc. The selectivity about apps and services would then be in the hands of the consumer not the provider.

Cheers... Steve


On 26 November 2015 at 21:22, Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Very nice Jim.

One problem of giving specific low usage caps in access could be there is quite a lot of mobile apps background traffic which randomly consume the usage caps?

As i pointed out earlier it will be really interesting to know what can we browse/do with today's apps/services over 9.6 kbps..as steve mentioned earlier this requires redesigning apps/content - FB is doing that but 9.6kbps is really pushing the limit? how would today's transport protocols work?

Regards

On 26 Nov 2015 19:51, "Jim Forster" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Steve,

I think it’s a great idea!

AirJaldi has been recently offering two different pre-paid hot spot systems.  One, called XWF (Express WiFi) is offered in Rishikesh and Garwhal district of Uttrakhand.  Facebook/Internet.org<http://internet.org> did the software for XWF; AirJaldi deployed the access points on our backbone in that district and manages the sales agents.  See this NY Time article<http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/facebook-strives-to-bring-cheap-wi-fi-to-rural-india-2/> for more info.  It is intended that this system will use their Free Basics system to give free access to certain sites.

The second pre-paid service AirJaldi has is called JaldiFi. A couple AirJaldi engineers did the software, using various Mikrotik & Ubiquity features.  JaldiFi is deploying in various places throughout AirJaldi’s network, including Kangra Valley, Kumaon, and Jharkand.  JaldiFi does not use Free Basics; instead we simply give registered users 10-20MB/day free service.  Registration is free and automated (users must supply a mobile phone number & then we send them a username/pw).  It’s obvious but worth noting that 10MB is 1/100th of 1GB, so a lot of ‘free’ users don’t impact the network much. It’s our belief that if the service is priced affordably, enough people will pay to make it worth our while.  Pricing is about Rs80/GB (~$1.25/GB), with some plans for as little Rs25.  Kumaon area prices are here<http://www.jaldifi.net/kumaon.html>.

Mawingu in Kenya does it a little differently.  For about 300Ksh, users get high speed service for a month, or if they don’t have that much money, they can buy a week’s service for 100Ksh.  Mawingu doesn’t give them completely unlimited service, but we find that the great majority of customers don’t use too much for us; email & web browsing is easily accommodated, but heavy YouTube/video watching eats up the MBs quickly.  The heaviest users will find then that their speed slowed way down, to about 128kbps.  That’s fine for email & tolerable for web browsing so they’re not cut off, but if they want more high speed for video, they’ll need to pay some more.

US-centric salutation: Happy Thanksgiving everyone!


  — Jim



On Nov 26, 2015, at 6:36 AM, Steve Song <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi all,

Following on some of the previous discussion about the non-linear relationship between Internet speed and value to the consumer; and reflecting on some of the discussions on zero-rating at the IGF; and thinking further about the PAYG model that enabled the dramatic growth of mobile telephony in emerging markets, I came to the conclusion that a low-bitrate, always-on Internet for all mobile phones would benefit everyone.

https://manypossibilities.net/2015/11/zero-rating-a-modest-proposal/

Would love to have the idea critiqued (gently).

Thanks... Steve Song


_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia




--
[phone]
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
http://nsrc.org