Jio’s offer is really good on paper, but it’s got to be one of the slowest 4G networks I’ve used when I tried it in February. Anyone know if this is because of a lack of competition (there’s effectively one other serious player left in the Indian telco market right now), or capacity constraints?
I think the speed is highly affected by the population density. I have seen speeds varying from ~40mbps to <1mbps. The less the density the higher the speed.
Cost of provisioning the backhaul network out to the middle of nowhere maybe?.. and paying people to live next to the tower and top up the onsite diesel generator.
I am getting 44 Mbps as i type (checked in fast.com). I am in Bangalore. It not very fast in other places i have been, but better than other networks (varies by location and almost always better than state-owned BSNL). Jio revolutionised the industry and was a boon for traveling as well. I barely ask for hotel wifi as almost always Jio connected fine even if between 4-10Mbps - it was good enough for checking emails, office work and casual surfing the internet.
The lack of competition is not enforced. The advent of 4G and the heavy investment by telcos in earlier generations of telephony has left them unable to compete financially with Jio. The nature of 4G technology means that the other telcos’ business models and borrowing structures are now simply unviable, unserviceable.
Jio 4G quality not being the best in the world is not inconceivable but it’s not part of some crackpot conspiracy involving some Chinese style oligopoly.
For a more competitive telecom market, the GoI has to do large scale debt restructuring and let go of a lot of revenue that they expect from the other competing players.
But this will also not be understood or forgiven by many of the leftists, who are a bunch of malicious hypocrites and keep weaving the story of “evil Reliance”.
> The advent of 4G and the heavy investment by telcos in earlier generations of telephony has left them unable to compete financially with Jio. The nature of 4G technology means that the other telcos’ business models and borrowing structures are now simply unviable, unserviceable.
I'm very curious about why you think this is the case, because in other countries incumbents managed the transition just fine.
Others have accused Jio of predatory pricing -- they managed to accumulate millions of subscribers by offering free services during their test period, a loophole that is now closed by the regulator[1].
Typical Indian cities/towns are not very well planned (Chandigarh being an exception). Narrow alleyways, haphazardly shaped houses/neighbourhoods are generally the norm (especially in smaller towns). Beyond the backbone (which tends to be pretty good in general across ISPs), the main factor of speed of mobile internet, which Indians mostly use for accessing internet, is directly proportional to the reach of the cell tower to the consumer. I have seen excellent speeds in one room of a house and not so great at another room of the same house with Jio and Airtel.
While Jio truly made cellular Internet available to 100's of millions of Indians, most post-paid (the profitable segment) customers are still with Airtel and to a lesser extent Vodafone (this one is a mystery). And Jio is again complaining to regulatory authorities that offering better plans to post-paid customers will harm all other customers (can't make this stuff up!).
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedstatesofindia/comments/huf1ec...
'The Ken' article, referenced in this Reddit thread, which is unfortunately behind the paywall, is very deep.
Sort of. Airtel is costlier than Jio and BSNL is worse in many areas. BSNL 3G is not only slower but doesn't have half the coverage of BSNL 2G (which is mostly used for calls and SMS not internet).
Jio is slowly increasing prices but is still cheaper than Airtel as far as I know. And the speed, while not true 4G, is better than BSNL 3G IME.
It is possible it was a paid article. Jio's attraction is about its low price point, not quality (speed/latency). Again, that itself is not a problem per se, some people don't need the fastest and the lowest latency as long as they have affordable access.
Is it? A few replies here are mentioning being happy with ~40 Mbps in bigger cities, meanwhile the last time I ran a speedtest in a busy CBD in Australia I got 600Mbps or so on 4G.
I sure hope you're trolling, because as an American running an AT&T 4G phone in the heart of Silicon Valley, 40 Mbps is about what I normally get on a good day.
And I assure you I pay way more than $2/ month. In fact, AT&T's cheapest unlimited plan starts around $65 - and thats the advertised price, which is always before taxes and fees, so its realistically around ~ $80 monthly once all of those ludicrous surcharges are tacked on. Once again, this is for their cheapest plan.
