×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

VoIP Now Technically Illegal In China

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the hush-it's-just-wise-regulation dept.

The Internet 181

ironfrost writes "A recent ruling by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) has declared that VoIP services are illegal, except for the ones operated by state-owned telecom operators China Telecom and China Unicom. According to the article, 'the decision is expected to make Skype, UUCall and other similar services unavailable in China,' and is widely seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits. Here's a more in-depth story in Chinese (Google Translate version)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

181 comments

Like everything else illegal in China... (1)

zeroRenegade (1475839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713356)

such as Twitter and other forms of social media, they will find a way around to be able to use it...

Re:Like everything else illegal in China... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713400)

And there will be ridiculously over-the-top punishments to make examples of individuals who are "disturbing social order".

http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/11/18/1832240/A-Single-Re-Tweet-Lands-Chinese-Woman-in-Labor-Camp

Re:Like everything else illegal in China... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713566)

You mean like with the RIAA? Oh wait, it all makes sense now...

Re:Like everything else illegal in China... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713788)

She didn't end up in a labor camp for using Twitter. She ended there for saying something the Chinese government doesn't like to hear.

Re:Like everything else illegal in China... (1)

ljgshkg (1223086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713676)

If there is a reason to, that is. For most people, it really doesn't matter.

Wow... (1, Flamebait)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713360)

So even "the commies" are really just tools for the telecom industry.

Re:Wow... (5, Interesting)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713410)

That's a very capitalistic way of viewing it... My first thought is that it makes it a lot easier for the Chinese government to be able to tap calls. It's easier to tap when you don't allow private infrastructure to exist.

Re:Wow... (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713798)

I don't understand why people have a problem with this. A government-run company eliminates the profit motive, is more efficient overall, and ensures everyone has service including those too poor to pay the phone bill.

At least that's what we were told in 2008-9 during the government-run health proposal (aka single payer plan). How is THIS any different? It has all the same benefits.

Re:Wow... (2)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714448)

A government-run company eliminates the profit motive, is more efficient overall, and ensures everyone has service including those too poor to pay the phone bill.

I think that's the only thing you've ever said that I agree with. The cheapest mutual fund in the USA is the Social Security Administration (and not by just a little bit, but almost an order of magnitude cheaper than the private choices with similar investments).

Unfortunately, the only thing you've ever said that's correct, you said sarcastically.

Capitalistic indeed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713896)

(Quoting the summary)

seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits

Try the Chinese government's profits. I remain absolutely shocked that the common man still doesn't view government as the profit-driven business it is, after thousands of years of centralized power. The key difference between government and private business is that (1) government holds the special right to employ coercion as its business model, and (2) government never admits that its primary objective is profit.

Never listen to what goverment says; instead, simply observe what they do. Behind every claim of "for the country" is a very rich man laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:Capitalistic indeed... (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714204)

The primary objective is NEVER profit. There is no point in investing energy and time to acquire money and then never spend it on anything. It's what the money is used for that's interesting.

Re:Wow... (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713596)

So even "the commies" are really just tools for the telecom industry.

I presume you are responding to this line in the summary:

is widely seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits.

If you believe that bit, I have a bridge to sell you.

The thing is the Chinese government would rather be seen as a tool than to lose control of the population.

Although the encryption in Skype has allegedly been broken (some say the voice encryption portion is still intact) the ability to scan packetized voice (let alone encrypted packetized voice) in real time is probably simply beyond the resources available, especially with things like skype finding their own routes for traffic.

Voip to carriers can at least be watched at the carrier's premises.

This has nothing to do with profits. This is the same government that blocked almost every western news site on the event of a dissident receiving a Nobel prize last month.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34714368)

is widely seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits.

If you believe that bit, I have a bridge to sell you.

The thing is the Chinese government would rather be seen as a tool than to lose control of the population.

Although the encryption in Skype has allegedly been broken (some say the voice encryption portion is still intact) the ability to scan packetized voice (let alone encrypted packetized voice) in real time is probably simply beyond the resources available, especially with things like skype finding their own routes for traffic.

Voip to carriers can at least be watched at the carrier's premises.

This has nothing to do with profits. This is the same government that blocked almost every western news site on the event of a dissident receiving a Nobel prize last month.

The VOIP restriction appears to only ban computer-to-phone calls not computer-to-computer calls. So skype-to-skype calls are ok but not skype-to-phone calls. Because of this, I believe it's more likely that the new restriction is to support the Chinese telecom industry. Everyone I know in China who makes calls from the computer make computer-to-computer calls (which are free), not computer-to-phone calls. The people who are most likely to be affected by this are businesses who use voip because it's cheaper than paying the telecom industries. For ordinary people, it won't matter much because they only make computer-to-computer call (which are free), and these have not been banned.

Re:Wow... (2)

magarity (164372) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713654)

So even "the commies" are really just tools for the telecom industry.

Umm, the telecom industry in China is state owned, so your comment should read: So even the telecom industry is really just a tool for "the commies".

Re:Wow... (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714030)

Correct.

I don't understand why people have a problem with this. A government-run company eliminates the profit motive, is more efficient overall, and ensures everyone has service including those too poor to pay the bill. It's universal phone service for every one.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34714544)

So even "the commies" are really just tools for the telecom industry.

Umm, the telecom industry in China is state owned, so your comment should read: So even the telecom industry is really just a tool for "the commies".

The current setup in China isn't "commie" in anything but name anyway- though that was possibly meant by the quotes. The entwining of state and private business interests in modern China is- as some have described it- closer to the first fully mature realisation of Mussolini's original definition of a fascist state, in particular the part where the state and private business interests serve each other.

Re:Wow... (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714336)

No actual commie has considered China (or Vietnam or Laos &c.) as a state working to build communism for decades.

If you've got a stomach for reading over-the-top longwinded speeches, Enver Hoxha did a good job of explaining revisionism in the USSR, Yugoslavia, and China.

How to play Chinese Monopoly (4, Insightful)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713362)

Now that's a happy little situation right there. I'm glad the FCC just stated, flat-out, that telco operators wouldn't be able to pull that particular shenanigans with services like skype here.

Though really, it's not all that surprising. China's gone for home-grown 'equivalents' of popular overseas services for quite some time--look at their 'facebook' and their 'google' workalikes, all doubtless with more than enough spyware built into 'em to keep an eye on dissidents.

Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly (0)

threaded (89367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713468)

Go for the orange pieces.
According to Jim Slater in The Mayfair Set, the Orange property group is the best to own because players land on them more often, as a result of the Chance cards Go to Jail, Advance to St. Charles Place (Pall Mall), Advance to Reading Railroad (King's Cross Station) and Go Back Three Spaces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_%28game%29

Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713500)

I've always liked the red set--Illinois, Kentucky, and that other one I don't recall off the top of my head. It seems to do me well.

Besides, the color is thematically appropriate for the chinese edition, where the Minister of Finance keeps a close eye on players who are too successful and do not bribe him sufficiently. ;-p

Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly (1)

threaded (89367) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713548)

Some others prefer the light blue Kuomintang set, as these properties are slightly higher in value than their predecessors, but later groups can still beat them. It costs $1070 to buy and put hotels on all 3 properties here. They rank 2nd out of 10 in payoff percentage, and 6th out of 10 in visitation frequency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang
http://monopoly.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Light_Blue_Properties

Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713656)

The orange properties are your best long term reliable moneymakers, although light purple and light blue are not bad either. Red are strong as well, and nearly as landed on as orange, but take significantly more development money for not much more payoff.

late game I find landing on developed light blues to be painful, but usually not fatal. Landing on oranges can often prove to be directly fatal, and even if not, they can often prove to be the beginning of the end. I would often work out a trade with someone landing on my hotel'd orange where instead of them mortgaging themselves to death and liquidating their hotels on baltic and mediterranian, they can keep those two and just pay me $500 (in case I land on those hotels) and give me 4 or 5 good pieces of strategic property. They still hold on to the idea that they can somehow win with their meger holdings. People LOVE those hotels, even though on expensive properties 3 houses often makes more sense, especially if you're trying to lock up the housing market to keep other people from upgrading.

Suffice to say, people don't like to play monopoly with me much anymore.

Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713530)

Don't worry. In America, it will be perfectly legal to use VoIP, but all ISPs will simply use their terms of service to cut you off. If there is one thing to learn from Wikileaks and how they were cut off by Amazon, PayPal, VISA, Mastercard, and hell, even Bank Of America, is that your "freedom" is at a whim of the companies that enable you to do what you do. You try to do something that can endanger their profits, and they will cut you off and you will have no recourse. (and yes, I know that State Dept. called Amazon et al. and asked them to do them a favor, but in the end it was the corporations that did the deed - gov't hands were tied by that "Just a Fucking Piece of Paper" constitution (google the phrase, if you don't know where it comes from))

So yes, "The Right" can continue to rant against Net Netrality because "The Left" wants it. And they may even win. And hell, even now there are ISPs that are blocking SIP calls already. As some SIP providers are rolling out VPN to counter, I expect IPSs just to block all traffic to SIP providers.... And that is *not* China, that is *here* in America. It doesn't matter if something is legal, if you can't get it.

Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713644)

You try to do something that can endanger their profits, and they will cut you off and you will have no recourse.

No shit? It's almost as if those are.... businesses whose purpose is to.... make money!

Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713720)

Wow, which ISPs block SIP? Just so I can warn people to stay away from them.

Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly (1)

KublaiKhan (522918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714116)

Those FCC rules that I referred to in the post up top specifically block that now. Someone wasn't paying attention.

or? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713388)

Or so they can record and monitor all calls...

Re:or? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713502)

This.

That the article states "and is widely seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits" is laughable. This is about China's need to control the lives of their citizens, period.

Re:or? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713612)

I wouldn't be so sure: Skype, through its local joint venture "TOM-Skype", has been more than helpful(if not too competent) [nartv.org] in assisting the authorities with surveillance. The "TOM-Skype" client is bugged, so it has full access to users' messages before encryption or after decryption, making surveillance trivial regardless of whether or not Skype itself is cracked.

Given the generally supine nature of the main competitor, it would, in fact, be wholly reasonable to suspect that this is a pro-incumbent move.

good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713408)

Skype is utter crap.

Re:good riddance (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713636)

One major failure in 8 years is crap?

For the majority of users its a very good (and encrypted) solution to keeping in touch with a crystal clear voice channel.

Re:good riddance (1)

d6 (1944790) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713756)

>> One major failure in 8 years is crap?

two actually [slashdot.org]

uptime wise, I would say it is acceptable, tho. The number of times I get busy signals when calling a non busy phone is not. I've had "skype in" for a couple years now and doubt very much i will renew it, as the availability is unacceptable, at least in my area.

I like skype. I don't mind sharing a bit of bandwidth peer to peer wise to make it work. it isn't quite up to speed, tho

Re:good riddance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713874)

Plus they just gave everyone a $1 credit for last week's epic fail. Which is nice.

In Communist China... (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713424)

In Communist China,
Competition regulates you!

Re:In Communist China... (2)

Stargoat (658863) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713852)

That's about it, too. Almost everything in China is illegal. It's illegal to own a butter knife. It's illegal to conduct most business transactions. It's certainly illegal to bribe, which is necessary to get anything done.

But that is what happens in a country that has so many laws. No one respects any laws.

Re:In Communist China... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714002)

Considering what they're trying to accomplish it would probably be easier to make everything illegal that isn't specifically made legal.

Re:In Communist China... (1)

ross.w (87751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714126)

That's how it works. When pretty much everything is illegal, it's easy to find a pretext to arrest someone you don't like.

fuck you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713428)

That DOES it! I'm not buying anything made in China anymore. No, wait ...

BTW Fuck Slashdot

I love where I live (1, Offtopic)

hodet (620484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713430)

So what do people in China do for fun? According to the news they aren't allowed to do anything. Not meant as a flame, just wondering because we never hear anything good.

Re:I love where I live (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713608)

That's because your media conglomerates decided that you should only hear the bad news of other countries. Makes you think that you have a better life than you actually have. Which makes you complacent and an ideal consumer.

Re:I love where I live (1)

hodet (620484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714364)

Projecting - a defense mechanism by which your own traits and emotions are attributed to someone else.

..and you know it's true as you went through the trouble to logout to post.

Re:I love where I live (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34714442)

Ad hominem, and incorrect with respect to the logging out.

I'd like to propose an experiment. For a whole week, watch the news on any European or Asian station, especially world events.

It might give you new insights. Or not, that's ok too. It won't hurt to try, does it?

Re:I love where I live (3, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713662)

>>>So what do people in China do for fun?

Sex?
I hear those Chinese ladies are, to quote a song, "Ladies in the street but a freak in the bed." You just have to make sure not to get pregnant more than once. :-|

Somebody else wrote:
>>>And despite doing things like this constantly, China is still the darling of all the so-called "free trade" advocates.

Kinda like Fascist Germany, Italy, and Spain were considered marvels by their contemporaries. They were the 1930s boom economies with private corporations under State control. A bit like China today.

Re:I love where I live (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713748)

Somebody else wrote:
>>>And despite doing things like this constantly, China is still the darling of all the so-called "free trade" advocates.

Of course, it's just like a Gilded Age America, today! (from a business standpoint at least)

Did you know Coca-Cola set up an office in Somalia?

Gilded Age was for wusses. (1)

danaris (525051) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714542)

Of course, it's just like a Gilded Age America, today!

You realize, of course, that America, today, is in a state of more unbalanced wealth distribution than the Gilded Age robber barons could even have dreamt of?

Dan Aris

Re:I love where I live (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713822)

One big reason why so many praised fascist and Nazi regimes back in the day - before they turned too violent - was because they were perceived as the only viable option to communism. A popular line of thinking was that the low classes, once they would discover that they are a supermajority with many common goals, would take over in any completely democratic society; whereas fascist authoritarianism would keep the "rabble" in line.

Re:I love where I live (0)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714416)

You mean how they took over in Russia and happily ensured decades of starvation and slavery for themselves and their children.

Re:I love where I live (1)

WrongMonkey (1027334) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714480)

He's talking about from the perspective of the 1920s and 1930s, either before most of the Soviet atrocities were committed or before they were widely known.

Re:I love where I live (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714564)

Yes, that is exactly the argument that was used: clearly the "rabble" who did it to themselves and others should not be able to really run the country, democracy be damned. Hence, fascism. Thanks for demonstrating the point so eloquently, while also showing that this thinking is alive and well on the American Right.

On a factual note, the folk who took over in Russia did not do so in a democratic society (it was a monarchy before the February revolution in 1917, and junta before the October revolution). Furthermore, they were not the majority, either - Bolsheviks were primarily the party of proletariat, and most of Russian population were peasants. After the October revolution, a democratically elected Constituent Assembly [wikipedia.org] was convened to define the future of the state and write its constitution; the vast majority in it were peasant-backed socialist esers [wikipedia.org], not Bolsheviks or other communist parties. When Bolsheviks realized that they're going to be kicked out from power if they abide by the decisions of the Assembly, they dissolved it at gunpoint; so ultimately it was a coup.

Its all for the better (1)

alexborges (313924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713436)

The more they tighten the grip, the less productive they will be.

Either the chinese find a way to soften their government, or they will never be the power they could be.

Re:Its all for the better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713536)

The more they tighten the grip, the more star systems will slip through their fingers.

FTFY

Also, you can't win, China. If you strike VoIP down, it shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine...

Re:Its all for the better (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713652)

They will never soften this government. They will have to wait till they all die off of natural causes.
In 30 years, it will be a different world in China.

Re:Its all for the better (2)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713704)

Yes, but what way will it go?

There is a large and dedicated movement of young Chinese, ultra nationalist, Han racial supremacists who are so radical and agressive that even the powers that be inside the CPC have had a hard time reigning them in.

China will change, but I would not blindly assume it will be for the better.

Re:Its all for the better (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714540)

In thirty years it will be a different world everywhere. Thirty years ago there were no cell phones, no DVDs, computers were mostly consigned to business, CDs were brand new and damned expensive, there was no TSA or DHS, you could smoke a cigarette at your desk at work, affordable VHS was new, the Space Shuttle was brand new.

And there was no way to predict any of the craziness that's happened in the last three decades.

two-for-one! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713444)

So there's two things established governments do best: protecting and expanding their own power, and protecting the financial interests of the rich and powerful.
Here the Chinese government can protect their ability to surveil all voice comms, while simultaneously protecting the state telecoms' profits.

It's like killing 2 girls with 1 cup!

Protect state-owned biz by outlawing competition (1)

mrnobo1024 (464702) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713480)

And despite doing things like this constantly, China is still the darling of all the so-called "free trade" advocates.

Re:Protect state-owned biz by outlawing competitio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713760)

"free trade" is just another term for "corruption and oligarchy", i.e. pretty much the definition of the Chinese system. So yeah, of course they love China.

Re:Protect state-owned biz by outlawing competitio (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714036)

Because free trade isn't about free trade so much as it is a tool with which the rich can bludgeon the poor into working for less than their labor is worth.

This is exactly the sort of situation that Marx was concerned by. The Bourgeoisie forcing the Proletariat to compete with each other to suppress wages so that the Bourgeoisie could have more money.

Re:Protect state-owned biz by outlawing competitio (1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714260)

China is still the darling of all the so-called "free trade" advocates.
 
Ok, can you provide some examples of free trade advocates who consider China their darling?

Shows how badly China owns us (3, Insightful)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713492)

Our government and corporations stand idly by while China infiltrates our military, government and corporate networks, commits blatant acts of corporate espionage, places unfair regulations on foreign companies operations within their country and now pulls blatant protectionist laws to stifle competition.

But nothing will be done because China is the largest emerging economy on the planet and no one can afford to pass up a piece of that pie.
Back in the day the US and other nations would be slinging trade embargos left and right and playing hard ball. Today, we're so weak and poor we just bend over and take it.

Re:Shows how badly China owns us (1)

mangamuscle (706696) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713624)

Do not worry, even as you read this they are furiously working at neck break pace in schemes to duplicate the chinese model, the USA will have the chinese model even before Fox becomes a porn channel.

Re:Shows how badly China owns us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713628)

What exactly do you expect our "government and corporations" to do? The fact of the matter is that we are beholden to China. Without their good will, our economy is destroyed. Militarily we might, MIGHT win a war - for now. China has been the worlds dominant economy for the last 18 of 20 centuries. Why exactly do you think that the US should somehow be on top?

Re:Shows how badly China owns us (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713694)

Our government and corporations stand idly by while China infiltrates our military, government and corporate networks, commits blatant acts of corporate espionage,

Our government and corporations stand idly by because we have not given them the China-like powers of control to prevent it.

To totally control china you would have to BE like china, and you (yes, I mean YOU personally, l0ungeb0y) would be the first to complain if our government gained such power.

There is nothing about this move that is in any way related to a protectionist stifling of competition. Its all about that level of control over its citizens that you seem to find lacking in western society.

Re:Shows how badly China owns us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713764)

[quote]Its all about that level of control over its citizens that you seem to [b]still[/b] find lacking in western society.[/quote]
There, fixed that for ya.

Re:Shows how badly China owns us (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713778)

Putting embargoes and tariffs on China doesn't require control over the citizens, it just requires balls. Right now, politicians are more concerned with keeping Walmart stocked with cheap "stuff".

Re:Shows how badly China owns us (2)

alvieboy (61292) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713872)

I'd say: whose debt is that ?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/chinas-debt-to-us-treasury-more-than-indicated/ [washingtontimes.com]

You can't mess with China. Because if they want, they can ruin US Economy.

Re:Shows how badly China owns us (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714064)

That's a myth, doing so would ruin them worse than it would ruin us. We do still have the capability to produce our own food, water and energy. Well, excluding most of our oil needs.

OTOH were they to do that they would majorly piss off most of the developed world.

Re:Shows how badly China owns us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713884)

Our government and corporations stand idly by while China infiltrates our military, government and corporate networks, commits blatant acts of corporate espionage, places unfair regulations on foreign companies operations within their country and now pulls blatant protectionist laws to stifle competition.

And sadly all of it happened and happens in the name of profit. Your overlords (I'm from another country which sucks even more) were too eager to increase their profits and now all of you pay the price.

Re:Shows how badly China owns us (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714434)

Maybe if the US government was not so worried about making corporations happy and turning the USA into the CSA (corporate states of america), we would not have any of these problems

Re:Shows how badly China owns us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34714634)

I can remember when people used to talk about penetrating the 100+ million Japanese market. Except for a few crumbs here and there, that never happened. Japan demonstrated the methodology to China. Rule #1 - Never, ever allow your trade balance to even approach negative. Rule #2 and others are of no importance.

Just feed them cheap products and they'll keep their snout in the trough. And they'll never ask why we are fattening them up. Oink, oink!!

Ah China.... They have finally grown up (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713494)

It is so wonderful to see them grow from Communism to Fascism in such a short preiod of time. .... It warms my heart.

Re:Ah China.... They have finally grown up (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713840)

Pretty much the only thing it takes to move from statist communism (i.e. any form of Marxism) to fascism is to allow private property - as that is the only major difference between the two. In that sense, China has been there a long time ago.

Re:Ah China.... They have finally grown up (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714078)

There has never been a communist state in the history of the world. They all had at least 2 classes and in no case did the workers really control the means of production and the wealth that it generates.

Re:Ah China.... They have finally grown up (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714236)

Well, of course there wasn't ever a communist state, because communism is supposed to be a classless and stateless society. Colloquially, we call "communist" those states which declared building a communist society (going through an intermediate socialist stage) as their ultimate goal. In reality, of course, we really mean "Marxist socialist".

Now as far as that goes... Soviet Russia in its early years was a workers' democracy - it was run by the councils, and those councils were democratically elected. So I would argue that it was really and truly a Marxist socialist state.

Re:Ah China.... They have finally grown up (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714500)

Pretty much the only thing it takes to move from statist communism (i.e. any form of Marxism) to fascism is to allow private property - as that is the only major difference between the two.

What!? According to right-wingers, economic freedom breeds political freedom. That's one of the reasons why "globalism is a good thing (TM)". The Chinese must not be doing it right!

Isn't it time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713546)

Isn't it time that the rest of the world gives China (and everyone else like them) a "last chance" with a deadline, then cuts their backwater, protectionist, dipshit country off from everything?

If they change, great! If not, it's their loss. It has to be made their loss or they'll continue to abuse their people and everyone else in the world. You don't negotiate with abusers. You lay down the law. And if they don't want to play by everyone else's law, then they pay the consequences to everyone else.

See also: what's happening to North Korea. NK is internationally irrelevant except for pure entertainment value. I doubt the Chinese would be satisfied with that role.

Re:Isn't it time? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713750)

1. They have a veto on the security council.
2. They make all the stuff the US uses, so five minutes later you have riots in the US because TVs cost $25,000.
3. There are many countries that like them.

Re:Isn't it time? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713848)

HAHAHAHA

Yeah let's see the US "lay down the law" and cut itself off from its cheap goods, cheap labor, waste dumping grounds, financial backers, and oil. This should be entertaining. It'll be like an amusement park sealing itself off from the outside world.

GOOD (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713576)

Those filthy corporations are no good. The government should operate a "single payer" voice-over-IP company that has no profit motive and is highly efficient, to ensure EVERYONE has phone service. We can trust the government to provide superior service to those no-good corporations and their greedy-greed-greedy selves.
(cough)
Woah. For a second there I was possessed by the spirit of Rachel Maddow. ;-)

Re:GOOD (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713958)

Actually, making the last mile a local utility has a lot to recommend it - no locked in monopoly, easier entry for competitors, and better services for consumers. You can also conceivably run servers at home without jumping through insane hoops. Comcast et al. would still exist as service providers of various stripes.

Re:GOOD (-1)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714348)

One of the most insightful and funny posts here. Naturally, it is modded Troll.

Re:GOOD (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714384)

Well, one does have to read it pretty much all the way through in order to figure out that it’s not meant to be taken literally. That’s asking a lot of some mods.

Two bad tastes that taste awful together (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713580)

who said that monopolistic corporate greed and paranoid government spying on citizens had to be mutually exclusive?

Profit motive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713680)

I don't know much about China and their telcomm industry but not much from China seems to be about corporate profits. It is more about state control and monitoring.

Re:Profit motive? (1)

joh (27088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713936)

It's both. China is since quite some time now a capitalist's wet dream with some people getting filthy rich. It's also a state wishing for control and monitoring. Actually both companies and politicians from the west stare at China with naked envy.

biTc$h (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713718)

live and a job to a fact: FreeBSD

People will use it anyway (1)

euyis (1521257) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713766)

No government is stupid enough to throw someone into jail just because he made some calls through some cheaper operator which was only recently declared illegal in some obscure announcement.

we chinese are no stranger to greedy gov officials (1)

wan9xu (1829310) | more than 3 years ago | (#34713792)

but even then i'm shocked by the blatant attempt at money grabbing in this.

reminds me of a recent (chinese) movie called "let the bullets fly". there's a scene very fitting to this news. the head of a bandit camp chides his men, who just raped a woman in front of her husband: "even i would put out the lights when i do this!" the chinese government didn't feel the need.

"Technically Illegal" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34713974)

The best kind of illegal.

Drunken notion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34714004)

Via VPN (and too lazy to cover my tracks) :
I ask - where is my free speech? This is not the Internet I was promised.
As I've been in China - it has more freedoms for a good capitalist than in western world. So why bother in e.g. USA while you can do stuff in China with 1/100th price?

QA you say? China has that covered. Top quality - mass production. Problem; change 'em... certifications covered, period. Bug fixing was a bit boring anyway.
Oh - the churn might be a problem... They'll ask more, not long. Cities need food. All need food, not found from these plains.

And why the hell would Chinese megaoperators give their marketshare to Skype? When they have govt' backing...? Guess that would bring a serious drop in general chinese output, at least in domestic market.
And that would drop figures...

either that or.... (1)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34714194)

widely seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits

either that or one of the Chinese ruling party had a bad experience on chatroulette.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...