Speech detection is just amazing when you think about illiterate folk, it's a game changer for them. Jio's genius was offering free data plans for a year, getting folks hooked. But the fact that it only costs 9 cents a GB is amazing.
9cents in India would be equivalent to 1.91 USD after taking into account Purchasing Power Parity (OECD 2019). Therefore, you are in effect saying 1.91 USD per GB is amazing. You can not compare values without including purchasing power disparities.
Even in India, before Jio made its entry, data was extremely expensive. Horrible speeds, very low data limits and no competitive pricing (you can say that it was a data cartel of sorts). Jio disrupted the entire sector. All ISPs reduced prices overnight. How could they do it? Wouldn't it hit their bottom line? Nope! They never went into loss in the first place. They charged exorbitant rates because they could. Not because there was some basis for it. That monopoly was disrupted. That is all there is to it.
And with a billion+ people in the country, ISPs will never go under loss for selling data for few cents - a dollar. Rather, they are probably making more than they ever did. Jio showed them the way to price correctly.
We are not comparing data usage, we are comparing the value of two different currencies. The value of 100 US$ in India is different from that in the US or the EU. In order to normalise the value between two currencies, PPP is used. It doesn't matter what the 100US$ is spent on, data or food.
But you are comparing value of currencies by comparing two equal goods. That would mean also comparing acquisition of raw materials, labour costs, import/export of goods, availability of resources etc which is never going to be the same. PPP itself has shortcomings (you can read them here: https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/international-trade/15-cr...).
For example, India might have abundance of rice while USA might have shortage of rice. But rice is used for making noodles in both countries and demand for rice is equivalent in both countries. Would you price it according to PPP index? Nope. You take into account any tariffs imposed by host country. What about transport? What about labour costs? There are so many variables that can influence the pricing of a product. PPP is a bad way to judge cost of living and cost of goods/services.
If PPP is 21.3 (2019 data) between USA and India, a Harley Davidson in India should be 21.3 times cheaper than a Harley Davidson in USA. It isn't. The cost is pretty much the same. So is the case with iPhones. Even if iPhones are manufactured in India it would still cost slightly less than in USA. It will never be 21.3 times cheaper.
Also, let us take Big Mac Index into account. It was a humorous take on PPP devised by economists to compare the costs of a Big Mac between countries (as McDonalds maintained standards between countries). Now the cost of a Big Mac in India and a Big Mac in US might not reflect the true PPP of the country because it all depends on the appetite of Indians for a Big Mac. We are avid consumers of street food. Street food for us is what is McDonalds for Americans. Now how can you make McDonalds as a standard for the World when in my part of the World a tiny percentage of the population visits McDonalds to consume their delicious burgers while a large percentage eats street food? Wouldn't that obviously influence the price of a McDonalds burger in India as the demand for it is next to non-existent? Now let me reverse the case and say that India tomorrow undergoes a massive cultural change and everyone shifts from eating street food to eating at a McDonalds burger joint. What would the price of a Big Mac in India be then? Obviously with high demand the cost falls rapidly. PPP should blow up right? But does that truly reflect the standard of living between two countries? That is a food for thought for you.
PPP does not mean that Harley Davidson in India would be 21.3 times cheaper. It means that the value of Harley Davidson in India in US$ would be equivalent in the US when the price is 21.3x
If you do not like PPP, you can use another metric to normalise prices. But, you can not simply compare two goods in two different currencies by taking an exchange rate. You need a normalisation factor. Every metric has its shortcoming - pick one but don't compare absolutes.
You lost me here. Can you elaborate on this more please? When it came to data comparisons you literally did multiply 21.3 with 9 cents and arrived at the value of 1.91$ per GB. So how is your comparing data costs using PPP as a normalizing factor fine but not fine when it comes to me comparing cost of manufacturing an iPhone or a Harley Davidson in both countries? Your argument isn't consistent. How can you ignore exchange rate and only look at PPP and decide the cost of living? It just doesn't make sense to me. Sure PPP gives a rough idea about where countries stand relative to the US when it comes to purchasing power parity but, more often than not, it is too far off from ground reality.
* You can not compare goods across two countries by simply taking the exchange rate, you need to normalise to account for different factors like disposable income
* I took PPP as the normalisation metric. It is not perfect but is meant for this purpose.
* If you are not happy with PPP as a normalisation metric, you can choose another one as defined by economists. If you want to come up with your own, you are also free to take another metric and agree with economists to use them. The metrics you have suggested are already considered in the PPP calculations. Look into them
Key Point : You can NOT compare good(s) across two different countries/currencies in absolute values.
This is where you are wrong. You have to take exchange rate when calculating PPP. Which is what I have been trying to explain to you. You are completely skipping exchange rate, which is why you are getting an inflated figure of 1.91$ per GB.
You should be calculating it this way:
Exchange rate: 73.17 INR = 1 USD Now 9 cents is, 0.09 USD = 0.09 * 73.17 = 6.58 INR.
Since PPP is 21.3, 6.58 INR would be 6.58 / 21.3 = 0.3 USD
So 9 cents in India is equal to 30 cents in USA. Now, that is 30 cents per GB and not 1.91$ per GB.
Remember that PPP is INR/USD and not USD/USD.
I couldn't get this from your earlier comments. I get it now.
It has now reduced to 4 cents per GB for Jio Fiber. I'm sure local ISPs have reduced prices even more just to compete with Jio (in some places you can get 3.3TB for 10$)
It's following the now classic Facebook model of pointing at scale achieved and outsourcing all the issues that scale produces to someone else namely govts, parents, teachers, the healthcare system, the police etc etc and then blaming all of those idiots for not being hip enough to handle it.
After all the networking are empowering women at 4c/GB.
We are nearing 20 years of this false narrative of the magic of "free" scale/magic companies with 10k employees handling a billion customers.
Given all the issues that have accumulated, keep track of how many more years its going to take for the chimp brain to figure out it was never possible.
What’s the connection between weather and fiber?
Exposed cables (and there are some, at least in US—my installer had to run some last-mile cables from the nearest, uh, tower, I guess, to my house) suffer from poor weather.
I have AT&T Fiber – the installer ran a line from the nearest fiber hut to my home (across several neighbors' yards and a storm water runoff/drainage area), and left it exposed. But a separate truck rolled through about a week later and microtrenched it, so it's buried all the way up to my house.
Around me, you might see aerial to neighborhood cabinets, but everything past that (cabinet -> pedestal, pedestal -> premise) is always buried. Considering how much of a pain buried lines are around here, I had presumed that there was some value to this. But looks like it might just be a constraint imposed by local regulations.
[1] https://www.ofsoptics.com/fiber-optic-solutions-for-the-home...
There is no such issue that ISPs are unable to solve with the infrastructure they have deployed at least for now. Keep in mind that what I am saying is anecdotal but I have a strong feeling it is the same for most Indians. In fact it was worse off earlier when they charged exorbitant rates but failed to deliver proper connectivity. Now things have improved multi-fold! Connectivity issues are now only evident when you travel to remote areas of the country. Earlier we had connectivity issues in the City/Town limits.
You are forgetting that it is at a scale of multiple hundreds of millions and potentially billions of customers that these ISPs are charging cents from. Every single day. That with value added services, which they charge extra, would mean they make a fortune!
Cost of labour is cheap in India. Land area being small is an added bonus as that would mean lesser cable laying work and lesser infrastructure. And since we skipped a generation of DSL/ADSL lines and jumped straight into 4G and Fiber we won't be facing much of the same issues that first World countries are facing today. Fixing network issues would be easier than say USA (you can fit 3 Indias (3.287 million square kms) in one USA (9.834 million square kms)).