[alpha1]

A thought just struck me. Since everyone on this thread is so opposed to private enterprises trying to do things their way, and everyone is convinced that the only way to do it the "right" and "fair" way is by Govt laws and rules.
BSNL and MTNL play by those rules.

How many of you would be willing to shift to them?

Originally Posted by mayankk

1. How is it a NATURAL progression when it's being brought into play by an mou between two corporations, successful or unsuccessful. Of which one is an e-commerce platform. Why not Wikipedia? Wouldn't that be more of use to someone who's experiencing the net for the first time?

2. If internet.org is supposedly the evolutionary step, why have a monetary agreement with one provider. Why couldn't Airtel have just gone ahead with the same sign-on? And then expounded upon the good they've done. Why didn't they just call up all the providers, and say, hey, have a bite.

3. You're the ones who are saying rules should come into play. I'm still sticking to universal access.
Inefficient enterprise cannot flourish, FYI, in this space at least. Unless it's government.

4. You should let cleartrip Fk and the rest know, because, what do they know? They've misunderstood net neutrality and withdrawn mistakenly. They'd love to be enlightened.

1. It s natural evolution because Airtel and Flipkart coming together was not based on some law of Parliament swayed by populist measures. It is a natural course of evolution because both Airtel and Flipkart may suffer heavy losses and close down because of this. And they cannot got to the Govt and ask for aid to recover. It is natural evolution because both have thought that this will lead them to increase their revenues and profits over their competitors.

Also about the Wikipedia point - I am sure you will get me wrong, but it looks like are missing the entire point about vendor tie ups. Flipkart does it because it WANTS to attract potential customers who are using Airtel as ISP. And wants to GAIN advantage over Amazon and likes. AND even the startups. You don't go about saying it is wrong or unfair.

2. It looks as if you still believe that profit making is of secondary concern to an enterprise. Perhaps you would want Airtel to become nationalized? The problem is that you somehow have a feeling inside you which says that profit seeking and greed is bad and has lead to all the problems ever encountered by humans.

On the contrary, the only thing that really separates us from animals is this exact behavior of "selfishness" (actually proper terms is self interest), greed, profit seeking that has lead to advanced in EVERY aspect of science and technology. YOU are using internet today not just because of benevolence of the world but because some is making money out of it.

3. Where have I made a point that we need rules and regulations??? All I am saying is that you will get access, but for some sites you will have to pay, for some you will get free. Where does making the rules come in?

4. They have just bowed down to the public pressure to appear politically correct. Please check my point no 2

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

This has been true ever since man used things made by someone else.
Even in the so called pre-historic ages.
The whole concept of religion has twisted it and made it appear as an evil thought - whereas whole civilizations, kingdoms, empires were established and running based on this principle.
Everyone on this thread who believes in fairness has been simply mislead from the childhood.

[mayankk]

Originally Posted by alpha1

A thought just struck me. Since everyone on this thread is so opposed to private enterprises trying to do things their way, and everyone is convinced that the only way to do it the "right" and "fair" way is by Govt laws and rules.
BSNL and MTNL play by those rules.

How many of you would be willing to shift to them?

You're assuming, and wrongly. Doing things your own way doesn't mean doing anything that you want.

[Lobogris]

It is a fact that the majority of people in India don't have internet access at this moment. This is changing but it will take around two decades for us to have near universal access. The question is whether we can accelerate this process by having some sort of mini internet. For many, it would be a great facility as it would open otherwise unknown means of communication, commerce, news, education and so on. With time, increased knowledge and prosperity, many of them might graduate to a paid service.

Why the scaremongering with doomsday scenarios? If most Indians lacked transportation and Tata decided to provide some free ride sharing scheme using Nanos, would we object saying that they should be using better cars even if they are more expensive?

Airtel has clearly stated that they will not provide any preference to any site and nor will they throttle sites. Then why begrudge people the chance to try out the internet? After they get used to it, many will find the money to pay as they would realise its benefits. The monopoly arguments are like arguing against everyone having access to cable TV as then someone can buy channels to feed propaganda to the public. The benefits of a well connected populace far outweigh any cons.

[drsingh]

Originally Posted by Lobogris

It is a fact that the majority of people in India don't have Internet. The benefits of a well connected populace far outweigh any cons.

Majority of people didn't have phone connections either a decade ago. Its when the technology became cheap enough that it gathered momentum. Data is today at the same point where voice was ten years ago. Smartphones are getting cheaper and Data too needs to get cheaper and infrastructure strengthened. It will happen in due course of time with market forces at work.


The Indian law as it is, is shaky on individual freedoms and violation of universal rights.

Our bureaucracy has the colonial mindset of rulers and love to manipulate the system to benefit cronies.


The Adhar system that was supposed to be only a database to identify a person became a source of harassment in Goa last year. When a Court ordered forensics to match partial fingerprints of a rape suspect to the Adhar biometric database. 26 suspects were rounded up by the police. That is very poor sensitivity for a parameter like a fingerprint that is unique.


We don't have the technology /expertise /mindset/protocol /history to protect private individual interests /rights.


The consultation paper by TRAI is pretty serious as seeks to give broad powers to the telecoms.

A right analogy would be shady Toll operators that milk the public by keeping details in the dark.

If not for competition and innovation, you would still be paying 1 rupee per SMS. Or a messenger /chat service would become a monopoly with a high fee.

The right way to connect the masses is to give them Internet access by DBT schemes leveraging Adhar data. The government keeps 5% revenue of telcos anyway for rural broadband.

A massive surveillance infrastructure has been setup and servers/nodes at every telecom providers network so the government can snoop on anyone.
This was done with no resistance or public debate as very little discussion about it took place in the media.

The Bureaucratic mindset in India is colonial in nature and individual rights and freedoms are not very high on the priority list. Unless there is more citizen action like in Europe, we risk becoming more like America where the government conducts Psyops and misinformation campaigns on its own people (they have done do in the past) to further state interests (also corporate interests) and to manipulate public opinion.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by alpha1

A thought just struck me. Since everyone on this thread is so opposed to private enterprises trying to do things their way, and everyone is convinced that the only way to do it the "right" and "fair" way is by Govt laws and rules..

So you are saying, laws and rules should not be made by govt? You should move to USA. There corporations can easily buy many laws.
There is a fundamental disconnect. You can make strawmans, make absurd arguments, talk about Karl marx etc., People who do not have solid weight behind their arguments start going into the realm of absurdity. So come back from your la la land. Its okay to have a different opinion from others. You do not have to start attacking them.

A lot of people believe that internet service providers should be treated like common carriers.
You do not believe that. End of story.

Just because a corporation is not being allowed to do something does it mean its being nationalized. According to your logic, if a hospital refuses to admit patients of a certain religion, and govt steps in, its some kind of communism and socialism.
That is the absurdity you are spreading here.

There is no problem in having an opinion that ISPs should not be common carriers and should be allowed to do as they please. Many people have that opinion. But it does not mean that we should also hold the same opinion.

[roy_libran]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Flipkart does it because it WANTS to attract potential customers who are using Airtel as ISP. And wants to GAIN advantage over Amazon and likes. AND even the startups. You don't go about saying it is wrong or unfair.

Just one quick question - Why exactly does Flipkart, or any other company for that matter, HAVE TO tie up with Airtel, to reach the Zero customers?
So far, you could carry out a retailing business without worrying about the ISP or Telco, now it seems they have to negotiate with them.
What is the justification for introducing this additional party into the equation?

[tsk1979]

Another reason we internet.org etc., should not be allowed. Unless you want to bring up a nation of fibiots

[tsk1979]

A very good article about internet.org
http://boingboing.net/2015/04/19/int...ring-poor.html

Mark Zuckerberg's Internet.org project bribes corrupt, non-neutral carriers in poor countries to exempt Facebook and other services of its choosing from their data-caps, giving the world's poorest an Internet that's been radically pruned to a sliver of what the rest of the world gets for free. Internet.org characterizes its goals as charitable and development-oriented. In their framework, poor people either face severe data-caps that limit their access to the Internet to almost nothing, or they get unlimited access to some of the Internet, thanks to Internet.org's largesse.
That framework ignores the alternative: using the organization's might and millions to fight corruption in the telco sector, demanding network neutrality for everyone, not just people in rich countries.
The idea of "zero-rated" services from non-neutral carriers isn't a new one. In countries like India, it's long been normal for carriers to accept bribes to exempt certain services from data-caps. This phenomenon has been widely studied, and the conclusion is stark: zero-rated services do not contribute to poverty-eradication or other development goals.
People in India can join the fight for a neutral Internet there -- over 750,000 people have already signed on.

And the sites too are picked in secret under some unknown process. For instance, Facebook chose to offer the distant-second search engine Bing instead of industry-leading Google. Why? Is it rivalry with Google? Or because of Microsoft’s stake in Facebook? And then Facebook’s Zero product features a tiny job site like Babajob instead of the industry-leading Naukri. Why? So that the poor have fewer job options? No one knows. Facebook does not feature YouTube – the largest video site in the world and an immense education resource – but allows its own videos in full. It does not really look like charity any more, does it?
Indian journalist Nikhil Pahwa has responded to Zuckerberg’s editorial, by pointing out research after research that shows zero services around the world universally tend to do badly for the people who use them. It all seems to amount to economic racism – exploiting the poor in under-developed parts of the world to become your customers under the guise of some apparent charitable purpose. While offering them a shoddy, stunted version of the real thing. As Vijay Shekhar Sharma, founder of payments app PayTM, puts it: “It’s poor internet for poor people”.
In perfect irony, Zuckerberg talks about seeing the wonder of a kid in a remote Indian village discovering the power of the internet. The upshot being that if Zuckerberg – himself a child prodigy – ever was brought up on internet.org, he couldn’t have ever built a Facebook.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by mayankk

You're assuming, and wrongly. Doing things your own way doesn't mean doing anything that you want.

But don't you agree that there is never a definite line drawn about where govt intervention will begin and end. And even if there is a proposal to define a line - there is never a consensus simply because everyone has his own views about how much control a Govt should exercise.

Originally Posted by roy_libran

Just one quick question - Why exactly does Flipkart, or any other company for that matter, HAVE TO tie up with Airtel, to reach the Zero customers?

Innovation, and this is the exact reason why in business things always keep evolving.

Flipkarts wants to gain an edge over others - say Amazon, Snapdeal, healthkart, lenskart etc. Flipkart believes that if it sends a ticket to each person's home to visit it's showroom - it will have increased traffic to its showroom, and thus increased sales (and consequently increased profits).
It has chosen Airtel taxi services to do this.

Tomorrow, Amazon will be forced to tie up with either Airtel Taxi or perhaps Idea Taxi services or some other.

From public's point of view. Tomorrow, if some of the public really see that "heck, most of my traveling is anyway to downtown market street where all these Flipkart showroom is, why not take the free tickets?"

Of course there will be people who will not have any incentives to take these tickets because they don't shop from showrooms.
So you may come up with a valid point - that Airtel taxi seeing lucrative business opportunity with Flipkart showroom restricts the no of taxis available for other journeys.
Possible.

But then if there is a sizable market for people wanting to go to Zoo, and railway station and airports instead of Flipkart showroom - it places a tremendous incentive for an enterprise to start taxi services to those places.

You know the only hitch here is that Municipal corporation plays a spoil sport and decided that only those who have purchased the restricted and regulated licenses can operate taxi. And therefore enterprises are restricted from entering the market place.

That's why I am saying that if a petition has to be made - it should be against the restrictive licensing policies of the Govt.
In fact, curiously, that's what ALL telecom operators say - if public wishes to argue about net neutrality then public should also argue about the licensing schemes.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

1. So you are saying, laws and rules should not be made by govt? You should move to USA. There corporations can easily buy many laws.

2. There is a fundamental disconnect. You can make strawmans, make absurd arguments, talk about Karl marx etc., People who do not have solid weight behind their arguments start going into the realm of absurdity. So come back from your la la land. Its okay to have a different opinion from others. You do not have to start attacking them.

3. A lot of people believe that internet service providers should be treated like common carriers.
You do not believe that. End of story.

4. Just because a corporation is not being allowed to do something does it mean its being nationalized. According to your logic, if a hospital refuses to admit patients of a certain religion, and govt steps in, its some kind of communism and socialism.
That is the absurdity you are spreading here.

5. There is no problem in having an opinion that ISPs should not be common carriers and should be allowed to do as they please. Many people have that opinion. But it does not mean that we should also hold the same opinion.

1. Corporates lobby and buy laws in the US because ... US is also very tightly regulated country. Not much different from India.

2. I have not attacked anyone till now. I don't know if anyone on this thread has felt so or not, but it has been a very clean and on topic question and answer session. You are right about having an opinion - but I believe a person should form an opinion after thinking logically. And not the opposite but usual was of forming an opinion based on feelings, and then not being open for any questions. When we have taken the name of Karl Marx - it has been to show that the ideas that appeal to emotions and seem absolutely great may lead to catastrophic failures over time. It is not to say that the person holding those ideas is an idiot.

3. Yes. you are right. But I don't agree with you end of story comment. A person's opinion can and should change based on logic behind. "End of story" means the opinion is wedded to a person and can never be changed. Why? When someone says that Internet providers should be classified under common carriers and not contract carriers or vice-versa - there should be some questions and answers fielded back and forth. Why do you want to kill the arguments?

4. Hospitals and patients. Aah ... the case where everyone would want to be politically correct. I would ask you one question - why do different hospitals charge different prices for the same solutions and services? If a Hospital refuses certain patients because of religion or caste, you term it as communalism and casteism, but if the same hospital refuses based on economic class and the bank balance - you don't say anything at all. Perhaps you would patronize such a hospital for not "diluting" its standards.

5. Yes I agree that people should hold different opinion. That's what free market is all about! Hold different opinion, do different things. Invisible hand automatically puts an economic value on everything and guides where the majority of money and resources should go ...

[ashua]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Innovation, and this is the exact reason why in business things always keep evolving.

Flipkarts wants to gain an edge over others - say Amazon, Snapdeal, healthkart, lenskart etc. Flipkart believes that if it sends a ticket to each person's home to visit it's showroom - it will have increased traffic to its showroom, and thus increased sales (and consequently increased profits).
It has chosen Airtel taxi services to do this.

Tomorrow, Amazon will be forced to tie up with either Airtel Taxi or perhaps Idea Taxi services or some other.

From public's point of view. Tomorrow, if some of the public really see that "heck, most of my traveling is anyway to downtown market street where all these Flipkart showroom is, why not take the free tickets?"

Of course there will be people who will not have any incentives to take these tickets because they don't shop from showrooms.
So you may come up with a valid point - that Airtel taxi seeing lucrative business opportunity with Flipkart showroom restricts the no of taxis available for other journeys.
Possible.

But then if there is a sizable market for people wanting to go to Zoo, and railway station and airports instead of Flipkart showroom - it places a tremendous incentive for an enterprise to start taxi services to those places.

..

5. Yes I agree that people should hold different opinion. That's what free market is all about! Hold different opinion, do different things. Invisible hand automatically puts an economic value on everything and guides where the majority of money and resources should go ...

If Airtel, Vodaphone and Aircel are the only people who hold licences to run cars on the roads (remember you just can't have your own cars in the ISP/Telecom world analogy, nor can you walk from one place to another) how do you propose there would be any demand of going to a new showroom unless the showroom is willing to give money to one of these three? The demand itself is influenced by the three as they can refuse to ply you to a new showroom saying they don't make enough money to do that.

Where is the innovation when Flipkart throws money at Airtel to corner its customers. And in the process, a smaller flipkart competitor/service which tries to bring technology innovation to the market can't. Airtel says, tough luck, the days of free internet are over. You don't have enough money to give me, I will charge your customer's to visit your internet store and then lets see if you continue get any. Suddenly, you are back to the age before the internet. Where your potential customer base is your village/town/city until you have earned enough to go to one of the three gods who can grant you an audience if you pay them a tribute.

Airtel is trying to be the invisible hand in all of this with Flipkart. Thankfully, sense has prevailed so far with Flipkart backing out and players like cleartrip, Times, NDTV etc backing out of internet.org. Hopefully sense will prevail and the government will instruct the operators to leave the internet as is/unregulated.

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by ashua

1. If Airtel, Vodaphone and Aircel are the only people who hold licences to run cars on the roads (remember you just can't have your own cars in the ISP/Telecom world analogy, nor can you walk from one place to another) how do you propose there would be any demand of going to a new showroom unless the showroom is willing to give money to one of these three? The demand itself is influenced by the three as they can refuse to ply you to a new showroom saying they don't make enough money to do that.

2. Where is the innovation when Flipkart throws money at Airtel to corner its customers. And in the process, a smaller flipkart competitor/service which tries to bring technology innovation to the market can't. Airtel says, tough luck, the days of free internet are over. You don't have enough money to give me, I will charge your customer's to visit your internet store and then lets see if you continue get any. Suddenly, you are back to the age before the internet. Where your potential customer base is your village/town/city until you have earned enough to go to one of the three gods who can grant you an audience if you pay them a tribute.

1. I know, and I have already written about it:

Originally Posted by alpha1

You know the only hitch here is that Municipal corporation plays a spoil sport and decided that only those who have purchased the restricted and regulated licenses can operate taxi. And therefore enterprises are restricted from entering the market place.

That's why I am saying that if a petition has to be made - it should be against the restrictive licensing policies of the Govt.
In fact, curiously, that's what ALL telecom operators say - if public wishes to argue about net neutrality then public should also argue about the licensing schemes.

If there was no licensing, you would never be without taxi. Uber was not a really technology innovation but an operational innovation which addresses this question: How do you connect customer to driver without getting into govt restricted licensing fueled inefficiencies?

I don't know if you have been involved projects utilizing telecom services / telemetry solutions - no one wants to get into regulated licensed bands for doing business. Almost everyone uses unlicensed 2.45 and 5.8 GHz bands. In spite of facing technical issues of interference and noise, technologies have improved to make use of this narrow unlicensed band. This is what leads to optimal use of a resource. Not licensing and giving exclusive monopolistic rights to a one/few parties.

2. Innovation does not only mean technical. Innovation can be financial, marketing, selling, operational etc. Money is a financial innovation (of course happened long time back). Lending is another financial innovation. Advertising is a marketing innovation. Tie-ups are selling innovation. The society collectively decides which innovation is suitable by rewarding it considerably over other ones.

I call Airtel Zero as an innovative approach because it addresses a new way of doing things that had not been though before: why should customer pay when Flipkart makes anyway money from their visiting?

[ashua]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Uber was not a really technology innovation but an operational innovation which addresses this question: How do you connect customer to driver without getting into govt restricted licensing fueled inefficiencies?
.
.
.
I call Airtel Zero as an innovative approach because it addresses a new way of doing things that had not been though before: why should customer pay when Flipkart makes anyway money from their visiting?

Yep. Uber did that and hence the example is a strong case for why the internet needs to be kept un-regulated. If uber had to pay the ISPs to allow access to its first set of users, do you think it would have been able to become a ~20 billion company in the span of less than 5 years?!

With Airtel NOT giving Flipkart a preferential treatment in terms of access, Flipkart is not sure/confident that an Airtel customer visiting its website is sure to buy. The same customer can go and compare prices at other websites including a smaller one which ensures flipkart prices continue to remain competitive.
So today Flipkart is big, but an open internet ensures if another better vendor enters the market, it can grow and out-perform flipkart quickly. Customer is truly the king and the decider in this scenario whereas the other one starts to give a lot of that power in the hands of the operator.

I see, so you are proposing there shouldn't be any govt. regulations in telecom and all spectrum should be unregulated and free to use. Can you site one example of a country where this is the case? How would like to read up how that has worked so far for them?

[alpha1]

Originally Posted by ashua

1. Yep. Uber did that and hence the example is a strong case for why the internet needs to be kept un-regulated. If uber had to pay the ISPs to allow access to its first set of users, do you think it would have been able to become a ~20 billion company in the span of less than 5 years?!

With Airtel NOT giving Flipkart a preferential treatment in terms of access, Flipkart is not sure/confident that an Airtel customer visiting its website is sure to buy. The same customer can go and compare prices at other websites including a smaller one which ensures flipkart prices continue to remain competitive.
So today Flipkart is big, but an open internet ensures if another better vendor enters the market, it can grow and out-perform flipkart quickly. Customer is truly the king and the decider in this scenario whereas the other one starts to give a lot of that power in the hands of the operator.

2. I see, so you are proposing there shouldn't be any govt. regulations in telecom and all spectrum should be unregulated and free to use. Can you site one example of a country where this is the case? How would like to read up how that has worked so far for them?

1. Don't you think Govt fiat ordering companies not to tie-up is a regulation? Yes, even in this case Uber would have become successful. ISPs are businesses being run by people who want to increase profits. they would jump boats when they see something more promising is coming up. Angel Investors and Venture Capitals are on lookout for such opportunities, why do you think ISPs will refuse doing such a deal with great ideas?

Customer will still remain king in deciding what becomes successful and what fails. You are equating choice to alternatives with equal price for each alternative. This is where we differ.

I am saying that customers can choose to use higher priced alternative if it gives him better value compared to a lower priced alternative.
Customers can also choose to use the lower prices alternative if he feels higher priced alternative doesn't offer him any significant increased value. The choice is still there.

You are feeling afraid that low priced alternative will wipe out high priced alternative. Your fears will be true ONLY if both the alternative sell exact same service/product/solution/promise. But this is not the case here. And this almost never happens in the real world too. We always have multiple price points for almost similar things. Even so called essential goods and services like water, food, health. The low priced alternative peacefully coexists with the higher priced alternative. There is a reason I placed emphasis on "almost" and that is because to an outside it may look that water is water, but to the person who is going to drink- perhaps he is fine with the tap water from railway station, or perhaps he is willing to pay higher for bottled water, or perhaps even higher for mineral water, or perhaps even higher for glacier melted water.

2. There are no such examples because worldwide there has been an agreement that only a few unlicensed bands shall be kept available for general public usage. Any other bands need to be purchased from Govt usually via auctioning. If someone else wishes to use this band (which may be un-utilized), they have to pay "rent" to the license holders. The Govt basically "owns" the electromagnetic spectrum (which is a disputable point - what is there to own?) and gives license to the vendor which offers highest price for it. Of course this fetches Govt a huge revenue and thus can be utilized for public goods. But don't you think this will also lead to higher prices for end customers, as well as eliminating competition? Also if Govt does indeed earn a huge amount from auction, shouldn't govt itself increase its own ISPs and network infrastructure from this revenue to ensure neutrality at least on it's network?

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by alpha1

Customer will still remain king in deciding what becomes successful and what fails. You are equating choice to alternatives with equal price for each alternative. This is where we differ.

so can you explain why people living in densily populated areas have choice of just one or two ISPs, and have to stick to their plans even when they are not good enough

I am saying that customers can choose to use higher priced alternative if it gives him better value compared to a lower priced alternative.

I want to switch to a faster internet connection. Please guide me how to

Customers can also choose to use the lower prices alternative if he feels higher priced alternative doesn't offer him any significant increased value. The choice is still there.

Again, another statement without any real world example. Guide us please

You are feeling afraid that low priced alternative will wipe out high priced alternative.

You give a statement. I give an example. How cable MAFIA in the absense of regulation killed channels they did not like. Or how due to all service providers colluding, VAS services died

Your fears will be true ONLY if both the alternative sell exact same service/product/solution/promise. But this is not the case here. And this almost never happens in the real world too.

are you serious?
Again, statements without example. Why don't you go on the internet while its still open and research plans by various service providers. See how same they are

We always have multiple price points for almost similar things. Even so called essential goods and services like water, food, health. The low priced alternative peacefully coexists with the higher priced alternative. There is a reason I placed emphasis on "almost" and that is because to an outside it may look that water is water, but to the person who is going to drink- perhaps he is fine with the tap water from railway station, or perhaps he is willing to pay higher for bottled water, or perhaps even higher for mineral water, or perhaps even higher for glacier melted water.

Yes, and nobody is saying it should not happen. 1000/month plan and 5000/month plan can co-exist. There is no stopping that even with net-neutrality

[ashua]

^
1. Governments and Law is expected to intervene when there is something anti-competition, anti-trust or similar in nature that two corporations decide to do. That does not make us a regulated market or a socialist country. We elect governments and this is one of their jobs.

All the talk of alternatives (low cost or high) falls flat in a walled garden approach, as zero rating services can only be afforded by the ones with deep pockets. You are left with the choice of 2/3 vendors who can afford them.

2. Its absurd to say an auction that is carried out for allotting spectrum is killing competition but unfair trade practices are not.

We have been going in circles for a while now, so I am going to stop and see what happens on the 24th.