Our Response to the updated Airtel Fair Usage Policy Limits

by Vaibhav (6,682 views)

As per Airtel’s website the FUP caps have been increased to the following levels (though official confirmation or communication to customers is still lacking):

Whether they have increased the caps as a result of our petition or not is immaterial. What is material is that while we sincerely appreciate that Airtel is trying to make amends, there is still a long way to go. We still disapprove of the FUP in its entirety, and

Our unified response to this move is as follows:

1. It is evident from this recent change in policy that these caps are flexible as they can be increased to multiples of the older limits (i.e. up to 3.3. times the older cap!). This change is indicative of the fact that the caps are arbitrary in nature and can be changed as per the whims of Bharti Airtel Ltd and are not based on some calculation involving scarcity of bandwidth. The necessary and logical conclusion that arises from this is that there is no impending necessity for the ‘Fair’ Usage Policy and the justification provided by Airtel that heavy users are slowing down the internet for other users appears to be false and a complete eyewash. This only reaffirms our belief and opinion that Bharti Airtel Ltd. is introducing this draconian policy in order to increase its profits at the cost of its customers. Without adding any value to the broadband services, Bharti Airtel Ltd. now apparently believes that providing up to 39% less services at the same cost is some sort of favour done to the customers whom they seem to admit were not receiving the speeds promised to them.

2. We are clear about the fact that what is in question is not the quantum of the caps sought to be enforced unilaterally by Airtel, but the very existence of these caps itself. It does not matter to us whether the caps are at 1GB, 10GB or 100GB – the very notion of “caps” or limits in antithetical to the claim of their broadband plans being “unlimited” and, therefore, completely unacceptable to us.

3. Bharti Airtel Ltd. has put itself in a checkmate. If Airtel is/was unable to provide the speeds promised by it, (which by their own admission they admit to be the cause of introducing this retrograde policy), then the question that must be logically asked is – What has Airtel done to compensate its customers for this admitted deficiency in services? If Airtel has been unable to provide broadband at the promised speeds, then it needs to give refunds and compensation to its customers. On the other hand, if it can provide the promised speeds/bandwidth, then it entirely negates any reason for this ‘Fair’ Usage Policy.

4. Bharti Airtel Ltd. should be transparent and disclose the amount of international bandwidth that is available to it, as well as what percentage of bandwidth is actually being used in total by consumers. If the reason that is purported for this policy is shortage of bandwidth then we see no issue with Airtel disclosing actual numbers regarding the same, the failure to disclose which will be construed accordingly.

5. If Bharti Airtel Ltd. does not have adequate resources to provide truly unlimited broadband access, despite being one of the largest (if not the largest) telecom companies in India, then it should be honest and brave enough to admit the same to its customers. We will respect them more for saying that they cannot provide that service than for trying to throw dust in our eyes, and try to renege on their promises of “unlimited” broadband.

6. We reiterate that the ‘Fair’ Usage Policy is detrimental to the technological development of this country, and is entirely against the larger interests of the nation. It is detrimental to all – from home users, to small/medium business to large corporations. The Internet today fuels the modern economy, and any move to degrade it does not come without long term and large scale consequences. To quote an oft repeated adage, Bharti Airtel Ltd. is being “penny wise pound foolish.” Instead of increasing its revenues, profits and goodwill by innovation and providing of new services, the company seems more bent on increasing their profits by unilaterally manipulating the existing internet packages so as to provide significantly less service for the same monthly price paid by the customer.