Beta
×

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!

China Telecom Mulls Entry Into US Telecoms Market

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the let-me-introduce-you-to-the-guys dept.

China 161

hackingbear excerpts from a story at Engadget: "Instead of resting on its laurels as China's third-largest wireless provider, China Telecom is now looking to branch out into relatively uncharted waters — namely, the U.S. consumer market. ... The proposed service would provide customers with handsets that could be used in both China and the U.S., theoretically appealing to Chinese-Americans, students or businessmen who travel frequently between the two countries ... and would even consider purchasing or constructing its own network in the States,' with the 'capacity to spend 'hundreds of millions or billions' on stateside acquisitions.' At its home turf, despite being a state-owned company, China Telecom, along with China Unicom, is being investigated over alleged monopolistic practices by the Chinese government. The two companies would face penalties of up to 10 percent of their annual business revenues if they were found guilty of monopolistic practices. This is the first such investigation into China's large enterprises since the Anti-Monopoly Law came into effect in 2008."

cancel ×

161 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

China (-1, Flamebait)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015724)

At its home turf, despite being a state-owned company, China Telecom, along with China Unicom, is being investigated over alleged monopolistic practices by the Chinese government. The two companies would face penalties of up to 10 percent of their annual business revenues if they were found guilty of monopolistic practices

What the fuck? Don't you see how ridiculous these Chinese == bad comparisons on Slashdot sound? Frankly, I have lived in lots of countries, including China and other Asia countries, and I always got better treatment while using their services. In fact, I hope they establish their services in Europe too. Yes, they could go to shit like every operator now, but at least at the moment they are so far better than anyone else. And frankly, that's all I (and other people) care about.

They are only interested about US market because it's LOTS of clueless people who live by advertisements and just don't know better. US is the dumb and clueless country. Sure, mod me down for stating the fact, but that is the truth.

Re:China (2, Funny)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015794)

I'm Mao Tse-Tung, and I approve this message.

Re:China (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015804)

Wait, how is that "Chinese == bad"? The summary merely states that China Telecom is being investigated for monopolistic practices. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Re:China (-1, Troll)

SharkLaser (2495316) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015836)

It's based on old slashdot stories. At least this time we got something that is actually true.

Re:China (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016184)

Actually, if they're being investigated for monopolistic practices, that equates to "Chinese == good". I wish the government here in the USA bothered to investigate alleged monopolistic practices. When was the last time that happened here?

Re:China (1)

bsane (148894) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016374)

They investigate all the time, but almost without exception* they take no action.

*There have been some notable exceptions in the past, but nothing I know of in the last 10 years.

Re:China (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38015814)

says angry chinese astro turfier.

Re:China (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016420)

I've lived in China, and found it to be cheap but crappy for internet, but good *and* cheap for mobiles. Support was clueless, but they tried to make an effort. By effort, I mean, came onsight to figure out what was wrong with my configuration. By clueless, I mean, they couldn't figure out why a Mac couldn't use crappy Windows dialing software. For Chinese Windows, they'd probably be pretty good.

As opposed to Australia, where you don't even get cheap, and mobile reception sucks; and support is often a guy in a developing country who takes half an hour to answer the phone, and lacks training. Because obviously telecommuters in developing countries are just too expensive to train properly, and you don't want to hire so many of them that they might be able to twiddle their thumbs between customers.

Thanks, but no thanks (5, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015768)

Certainly more competition is good, especially in the mobile phone market where there's barely any.

But to trust a phone service from a country known for stifling free speech... I think you'd have to be a little crazy.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38015796)

But to trust a phone service from a country known for stifling free speech... I think you'd have to be a little crazy.

And to trust the setup and maintenance of a CALEA-compliant (i.e., completely backdoored and eavesdroppable) phone service to a country known for industrial espionage... I'd think we'd also have to be a little crazy.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (4, Interesting)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016240)

So I should be concerned that China telecom might somehow be messin' with my service, but it's tolerable to KNOW that the NSA, CIA, FBI, and my local police can listen in without warrant or my knowledge?

Frankly, China Telecom will fit right into the U.S. market. Let's see:

- Accused of monopolistic practices: check!

- Suspected of or confirmed to be cooperating with government in suppressing free speech, eavesdropping, etc: check!

- Operates GSM network: check!

Well, looks like AT&T might find a buyer for the TMO assets they don't need.

I think CT nails it. GAME OVER!

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016454)

But but but... when TLAs do it, they're protecting you from terrists and lunix-wielding anonhackers. When China Telecom does it, it is evil and for purposes of furthering communism.

Not Worried About Added Boofing? (1)

cmholm (69081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016552)

It's not tolerable to KNOW that the NSA, CIA, FBI, and our local police can listen in without warrant or our knowledge.
It's idiotic to add Chinese espionage to the mix.

Re:Not Worried About Added Boofing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016694)

may be a china operated company would be less happy to work with the NSA, CIA, FBI etc on its equipments than an American one. Afterall, they look after their own interest. I mean they might also have something they want to hide from the US.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016604)

So I should be concerned that China telecom might somehow be messin' with my service, but it's tolerable to KNOW that the NSA, CIA, FBI, and my local police can listen in without warrant or my knowledge?

You should be concerned when both are doing it. The point here is that this deal is lose/lose for both the American citizen/consumer/business (even though, due to tapping by USGov TLAs, the US citizen has little left to lose :) and for the American government/military/security community.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016628)

Yeah but the NSA, CIA and FBI aren't selling your secrets to your competitors. Or worse, setting a wholly-owned subsidiary up as a knockoff/competitor.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015894)

While at some point that might have been a tenable position, it seems more and more untenable these days with the direction the US is unfortunately going.

The mess over WikiLeaks.
Protect-IP DNS blocks
US DOJ seizures of websites
Free speech zones

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (5, Interesting)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015898)

I don't trust any telecomminucations company to be honest- but I see no reason why to distrust China Telecom more.

They'd have to be crazy to try to censor Americans in America on American [Chinese made] phones. They would lose customers pretty quick.

When In Rome...

I wouldn't be the first to switch- I'd have to see their costs and quality first. There again, I'm not an early-adopter of anything.

It wouldn't be censoring. (2)

khasim (1285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016030)

The worry is that they'd tap your calls and send everything back to China.

Yep, I know, the USofA may already be tapping your calls.

Re:It wouldn't be censoring. (1)

IronOxen (2502562) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016172)

All calls will be routed thru the Great Firewall Of China for inspection but bypass our own unamed version that the NSA uses to listen for "terrorist" activity

Re:It wouldn't be censoring. (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016226)

Who cares if they do? What are they going to do with the information? Blackmail you with it when they find out you're having an affair? Please.

They're a much smaller threat than the US government, which already has the legal ability to eavesdrop on your conversations without any kind of warrant, and uses this ability all the time. If you do something the USG doesn't like, they can actually arrest you and throw you in jail on trumped-up charges. The Chinese government can't do that (unless you travel there).

Re:It wouldn't be censoring. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016320)

it's not about you

They'd target people who work in tech or security (e.g. military personnel, google employees, etc.) in order to steal information

Re:It wouldn't be censoring. (3)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016590)

For company employees, I don't see the problem. How many low-level Google employees talk on the phone about sensitive job details? They work in cubicles, so they talk in person, or over their office phones, over email, etc. Of course, any high-level employees would be stupid to use this service.

Re:It wouldn't be censoring. (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016922)

Who cares?

-People, namely engineers, scientists, and businessmen, discussing any form of their work/research/business might care.
-People that more vocally discuss negative aspects of the Chinese government.
-Government employees talking about anything related to work (unclassified).
-Meta-communication trends among US citizens that might not be as accessible.
-People involved in forms of security.
-Military members.

With quick brainstorm, you might have avoided being naive.

Everyone Taps (3, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016238)

The worry is that they'd tap your calls and send everything back to China.

Who cares? Even if the government is not tapping calls already, some network engineer could be listening in for fun on any phone provider you are already using.

Phone conversations are about the least secure form of communication these days; treat it as such.

Re:It wouldn't be censoring. (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016288)

I feel sorry for the Chinese if they have nothing better to do than listen in on my wife telling me what the kids are up to.

I can see not giving the police or military Chinese phones- but hearing about my kids is not going to benefit China any.

The current US telecoms ALREADY track all your calls who- when- and where. I can't see how the Chinese tracking me would be any different.

Re:It wouldn't be censoring. (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016346)

Exactly right. Heck, even if you're discussing illegal activities, what's going to happen? Why would the Chinese government care if you're going to your dealer's house to pick up a bag of pot? They won't. However, the US government would love to know about that so they can bust the guy, steal^Hconfiscate all his assets, and make the news headlines, and throw both you and the dealer in prison so that Wackenhut Corp. can make tons of money and give some to some friendly politicians.

Re:It wouldn't be censoring. (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016768)

They're more interested in corporate secrets. There's a reason why there isn't already a market for phones that work in both China and the US. If you go to China they can and do seize the phones from time to time, sometimes they give them back when you leave the country, but I'm not personally going to be taking a phone with me to China.

Information about ones family is definitely useful if one is trying to get secret information from a target. Granted most folks aren't going to have that kind of information, but I'm betting that they'll figure out who does quite quickly.

Re:It wouldn't be censoring. (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016942)

Just because your life is not interesting from an espionage point of view does not mean everyone elses' is as well. It just means that you've got nothing people want to know.

Re:It wouldn't be censoring. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016642)

The Chinese don't care about anything you are doing except for state secrets/technology/whatever. AND you would have to be a moron to use ANY insecure channel to communicate classified information (or proprietary trade secret stuff--you may very well be a moron). The Chinese are no bigger threat than any other telecom company.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016876)

Most acts of corporate, scientific, and national intelligence espionage against US entities has been associated with China.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38015916)

Certainly more competition is good, especially in the mobile phone market where there's barely any.

But to trust a phone service from a country known for stifling free speech... I think you'd have to be a little crazy.

Yes, Because USA is SUCH a free and open country *sigh*

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38015918)

but U.S. government spying onto its own citizen without prior court order is perfectly okay with you.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

Piata (927858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015920)

You trust US run telecoms and they will just as readily hand over your call and internet history to the US government under the guise of "national security".

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016062)

The difference being that what constitutes a crime in China vs the USA is still very different. You can claim the government shouldn't be able to monitor your communications, but no matter how much you don't like it, they will always have some form of access to communications. They need to prevent crime, that's their job. The difference is that in the US they won't throw you in jail for criticizing the government (yet).

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016354)

Neither will the Chinese government. In fact, they'd probably be happy to hear you criticizing the US government on their phones. They won't care much about you criticizing their government either, as long as you don't travel to China and do it.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016792)

Of course they care about people outside their country criticizing their nation, that would be a ridiculously huge loophole if they didn't care about it when you left their soil. The difference is that they have limited capacity to end it when it's not in their country.

Also, the summary suggests that the phones are being targeted at their citizens that go abroad, so there could very well be consequences for offenses that violate Chinese law while abroad.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016080)

I'd rather they hand over my information to MY government for MY government's national security than them handing it over to the Chinese government for THEIR national security. Don't say they wouldn't' do that when they're already partly owned by the CCP.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (3, Insightful)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015982)

Americans have consistently demonstrated that EVERYTHING is negotiable if the price is low enough. Certainly some people would have problems with doing business with China Telecom, but if the cost was low enough and the service was good they'd do OK in this market.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016242)

If the service was good, they'd be a real stand-out in this market, because all the other ones have shit service.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (2)

Deflatamouse (37653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016064)

The corporation is not the same as the country it is from. Of course the CCP may be in control of the company. But they would have to obey U.S. laws if they were to operate on U.S. soil. WIth that said, I'll give them a try if they offer $5 unlimited voice and data plans ;-) At lease until other carriers lower their prices. Competition is a good thing.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016090)

Thing is, the "cheap" model works when you keep your labor in China. Once Chinese companies start having to hire workers and build infrastructure in the US their costs will quickly rise to the level of US providers.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016930)

Thing is, the "cheap" model works when you keep your labor in China. Once Chinese companies start having to hire workers and build infrastructure in the US their costs will quickly rise to the level of US providers.

Not necessarily:

  1. Because they're not publicly traded, they can strategise and execute their business plan based on much longer time periods;
  2. They are almost certainly willing to accept lower profit margins than US telcos;
  3. When building out their infrastructure, they can quite likely benefit from sweetheart deals with 'cousin' companies like Hua Wei;
  4. They can outsource a very large portion of their operation back home to China;
  5. They don't have a thick layer of vastly over-compensated managers draining the coffers with expectations of fat bonuses, corporate jets and such....

The Chinese may not offer the best quality in the world when it comes to goods and services, but they compete ferociously and, in my experience, fairly[*]. They simply cut your throat on price and wait for you to bleed to death. American consumers shouldn't assume this is entirely a bad thing.

------------
[*] Of course, 'fair' is an interesting term. I mean to say they don't tend to lie to you. If they say, 'I'm going to cut your mother's throat and kidnap your children', that's exactly what they intend to do. Contrast this with the polished, smiling American exec who mouths buzzword-laden platitudes while he deploys the straight razor, then gets offended when you won't meet him for golf on Sunday.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016388)

From a country known for stifling free speech, huh?

You mean like America?

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (2)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016428)

T-Com is German. How can you trust Germans, who have been on the other side of 2 world wars in the past century? China Telecom has no incentive to stifle free speech of Americans. Why would they? For shits and giggles? They just want to make money, like every other company, and since America's market is nearly monopolized, there's a good opportunity.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016450)

I agree, but since the cell companies are already *so* evil, I'd probably consider the chinese gov't an upgrade in terms of trustworthiness.

Primary advantage: They would be a new entrant to the market, and may choose to not join the current big boys club of 4 (or is it 3?) big cell companies that give us all basically the same overpriced service. Imagine a cell provider who, gee whiz, *allows you to use a smartphone without a data plan*, or, I don't know *doesn't lock down the function of your phone*, etc.

Primary disadvantage: Yes, the Chinese government may be able to get easier access to my private conversations (like what wife/I are going to do for dinner) and spot the goatse-type photos my high school friends send out about 3 times a day.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016704)

OMG.

I have tears running down my face man. +5 Funny. To say we could trust US telecoms to protect our privacy more than a foreign company is some rich sarcasm.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016856)

Or...

But to trust a phone service from a country that is known to have the biggest espionage network in the world, and is the subject of nearly all acts of espionage against the US in the last decade+..... No.

Please vote this up. Anon for personal safety.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016996)

Certainly more competition is good, especially in the mobile phone market where there's barely any.

But to trust a phone service from a country known for stifling free speech... I think you'd have to be a little crazy.

Think again. A Chinese telecom is well aware of their role in "playing ball" with government authorities. Not that the domestic crowd have much to brag about ( the late QWest being the exception) when it comes to protecting the privacy of their customers. In other words, they'll fit right in.

China Anal Mulls Entry Into US Analingus market (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38015802)

It happened when I was 19, a guy I met a guy in my College library took to his dorm and turned me around having pulled pants down. I figured he wanted to eat me doggystyle, when he stuck his tongue up my anus...

7 years later and more than 30 partners of all shades; half of whom have performed analingus on me, has me thinking its perhaps the new cunnilingus and 10 years time it will be part of foreplay.

PS: I return the favour.

Your thoughts.

Re:China Anal Mulls Entry Into US Analingus market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016434)

Deja vu.

Re:China Anal Mulls Entry Into US Analingus market (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016476)

One day you will fuck up and post using your account and we will all laugh our asses off.

A Conspiracy Theory for your enjoyment. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38015842)

China Telecom wouldn't need to purchase, or operate, a network in the US, to offer the supposed "China-US Traveller" service. They could simply negotiate for low cost roaming with established networks.

This is a move to gather intelligence.

Contemplate.

Re:A Conspiracy Theory for your enjoyment. (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016758)

"This is a move to gather intelligence."
In the consumer market? I don't think so.

Re:A Conspiracy Theory for your enjoyment. (1)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016834)

You think consumers, who have cell phone subscriptions, and pay the bill, don't have jobs ? You think the consumers, with cell phones, and jobs, don't have business conversations and connections ? You think the network call graph between parties doesn't reveal social group interactions ? Think again.

Perfect political target (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38015854)

I can think of no better political target for our useless politicians to distract us with than the threat of a Chinese telecom, no matter how good it may or may not be.

Re:Perfect political target (1, Offtopic)

zill (1690130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016220)

It used to be "bread and circuses", now it's "Chinaman steal your jobs while Muslim bomb your suburban homes".

Bye bye US of A (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38015890)

Well if you can't conquer them, buy them out. It always works.
Go China, maybe US customers will have a hint of good competition in the market place for once.

required pants joke (1)

slashpot (11017) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015946)

China Telecom Mulls Entry Into .... my pants!

Re:required pants joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016158)

LOVE IT.

T-mobile (4, Insightful)

Usefull Idiot (202445) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015950)

Am I the only one that T-mobile came to mind? I mean if AT&T can't make a deal with them, I'm sure China Telecom would have the $.

Re:T-mobile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016120)

I was thinking the exact same thing. Anyway, I can't imagine a Chinese telco could be any worse than the steaming piles of shit we currently are privileged to choose from.

Re:T-mobile (1)

rabtech (223758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016978)

Well T-mobile would be more expensive; they don't have enough spectrum and Deutsche Telekom has left them starved for capital funding for a while so the network isn't in great shape either.

Sprint might be a better fit either as an investment (since Sprint needs the cash for Network Vision) or as a wholesale customer (since Sprint is already doing that). As a wholesale customer they don't have to worry about any legal questions or other complaints and Sprint could get a nice up-front cash payment that would eliminate the need to go to the market for more debt. Unlike T-mobile, Sprint owns 800Mhz spectrum (the valuable building-penetrating kind) and 1900Mhz spectrum so they should be able to do well *if* they can survive their cash needs during the next two-three years it takes to build out their nationwide LTE network. Also unlike T-mobile they are a tier-1 internet backbone provider with significant fiber overland and undersea (though they don't have the benefit of last-mile lines line ATT/Verizon do for backhaul) but once they have the traffic dumped on their fiber they don't pay for transit or peering of that traffic. IIRC ATT (?!) and the cable companies have been bidding to run fiber to the Sprint cell tower sites and that deployment is underway.

I like to investigate myself too. (3)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015966)

So an Authoritarian government is "investigating" a state-owned company for monopolistic practices? Who's doing the "investigation", the son of the company director?

I'm glad China is trying to clean up the corruption in their system, but there's little point if they don't allow competing political parties. An investigation of a state owned company by the state is somewhat suspicious in a democratic system, but when there's only one party, it's goddamn pointless.

Re:I like to investigate myself too. (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016274)

How's this much different from the USA, where there's only one party, but with two faces?

Re:I like to investigate myself too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016440)

So an Authoritarian government is "investigating" a state-owned company for monopolistic practices? Who's doing the "investigation", the son of the company director?

I'm glad China is trying to clean up the corruption in their system, but there's little point if they don't allow competing political parties. An investigation of a state owned company by the state is somewhat suspicious in a democratic system, but when there's only one party, it's goddamn pointless.

Yeah it would never happen in the US that foxes are put to guard the hen houses. Right ? Right ?
WTF do you think the federal reserve is ?

Re:I like to investigate myself too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38017008)

The Chicoms "investigates" China Telecom, find them guilty, then take the fines to pump into failing banks.

They did the same thing to China Mobile.

well... (1, Funny)

demonbug (309515) | more than 2 years ago | (#38015972)

At its home turf, despite being a state-owned company, China Telecom, along with China Unicom, is being investigated over alleged monopolistic practices by the Chinese government.

Sounds like it would fit right in here.

The two companies would face penalties of up to 10 percent of their annual business revenues if they were found guilty of monopolistic practices.

Wait, they might actually get punished? Never mind then, won't fit into the U.S. market.

I was going to say something about not trusting a Chinese-government-owned telecoms company, but then I realized who their competition is.

Re:well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016584)

If our telecommunications market was not so regulated and protected and if it were actually free to follow consumer preferences rather than bound by state granted monopolies, it would be interesting to have a foreign government subsidized competitor enter the market. Initially at least, any underbidding or just generally outperforming existing businesses would be done not through better practices in innovation and productivity, but rather by shifting the cost burden from US customers to their Chinese customers, making the US foothold a loss leader. So basically it would be a microcosm of what is already happening: Chinese citizens subsidizing our standard of living.

Of course in the long run, I am not sure what would happen. Unless I am missing some logical deduction, I think it would be detrimental even to US consumers since innovation wouldn't be selected for, but subsidization would be. Eventually, the industry would be so much more stagnant than had it been left open to competitive businesses, so that constant lowering of prices and improvement of service would be lost and eventually that loss would override the subsidization we receive.

Good luck (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016008)

They'll need to be seriously cheap to overcome the power of Yellow Peril 2.0. Or name themselves Freedom Eagle Bacon Gun-tel.

Re:Good luck (1)

stms (1132653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016180)

If a telecom this telecom company is indeed willing to invest billions of dollars into infrastructure in the U.S. it might actually fix our currently broken telecommunications system by creating competition. I'd be willing to buy my phone/internet/whatever service from them just for that reason. At least until AT&T buys them out.

Re:Good luck (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016246)

The way I see it, a government's going to be spying on your connection either way, and if anything a government with a language barrier that doesn't care about IP issues seems like a better option :-P

Re:Good luck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016200)

No what they REALLY have to do is defeat the lobbyists employed by the miasma of companies that form Ma Bell.

I think they might be surprised to find exactly how monopolistic the North American telecom "market" really is.

This ain't China boy, you can't just SELL SERVICE COMPETITIVELY in the USA (yeesh).

Re:Good luck (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016278)

I hear bribery is a common business custom in China, they should fit right in...

Re:Good luck (1)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016218)

I notice that you have the same sig as SharkLaser (2495316) and a curiously similar sentence structure pattern.

Re:Good luck (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016262)

The sig's not exactly the same, look at where they link to, and the post dates...

PLEASE! (-1, Offtopic)

trum4n (982031) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016078)

I would love to have a cheap ass cell phone. It really can't be any worse than my $500 piece of crap. Really, this is the best phone i've ever had, and its still trash. Android is a better operating system than iOS, but iOS has Bently style fit and finish. My copy of Android seems like it was written by drunk 12 year olds. Crash taking a picture, crash sending a txt, crash loading the browser. This is Alpha shit. Even Beta programs are better than this. And this is version 2.1? It shouldn't be released till version 5, apparently. The fact that my GPS antenna fell off the motherboard is just icing on the cake, proving the fact that no matter what you spend, you get junk. Why not let my spent $100 on he next one? At least i'll laugh when it sucks then.

Re:PLEASE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016692)

Not much difference with iOS:

Crash when firing up the App store when upgrading.
Crash when firing up Photos.
Locked out of accounts for 8 hours with "fatal errors" on Apple's end.
Springboard crash.

Oh, this is a non-JB-ed phone. The only difference is that you get dumped to Springboard, or the lock screen without a "force close" button.

Losing access to my iCloud stuff made me realize how dependent I am on that account... lose the account for good, and I'm out big bucks for apps, songs, videos, and plenty of other things. At least if I lose access to my Google account, I can still restore my phone using nandroid or Titanium Backup.

So, the grass is greener... both Android and iOS need some improvement.

Ask Mitt (0)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016086)

Mitt, is this a war declaration?! Huntsman, no it's business as usual. Cain? 9-9-9! Perry lets combat those Koreans, Vietnamese, and that, err... Palin, Russia! No, that, err, third country.

They are very qualified to work in the US (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016150)

China Telecom, along with China Unicom, is being investigated over alleged monopolistic practices.

This shows that they are well prepared to be a telecom company in the US.

Now, isn't this what all of you want (2)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016174)

The idea that China cheats at business and now, they want to use monopoly status in China to come over to the west. This is SUCH a good idea.

Please, please, please do this!!! (2, Interesting)

Okian Warrior (537106) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016210)

When this happens, I'm there. I'll be their first customer.

This looks to the future where China manages all US infrastructure. Where will it end? One can only imagine.

Chinese management and control of the power grid? Water/sewer? National highway repair? Health care?

For all the bad things people will point out, the sum total is that people will get much better services for the money. The Chinese motivation for doing things in an expert, professional manner will more than compensate for the loss of government control.

Your trade is for a government which grants a lot of freedoms, and a government which curtails some of your freedoms (but generally leaving you alone) in a world where all the services run perfectly. And the freedoms granted in the first case seem to be evaporating in any event.

The Chinese couldn't be *that* much worse than the US, and for good infrastructure I'm willing to take the chance.

Re:Please, please, please do this!!! (3, Funny)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016306)

Move to China ... wish granted.

Government doesn't grant freedom in the US (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016314)

The people have the freedom, and grant the government specific powers.

At least how the system was set up to be. YMMV

Are You Satirical or a Fool? (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016536)

Your trade is for a government which grants a lot of freedoms, and a government which curtails some of your freedoms (but generally leaving you alone) in a world where all the services run perfectly.

Okay. I must take issue with "generally leaving you alone." This is utter and complete bullshit. When the recent news is that 39 of the largest companies in China are agreeing to begin their own censorship initiatives under guidance of the Chinese government [bbc.co.uk] I have to ask you one question: If you were to give any political party in America complete control of what comes in and out of our TVs, Radios, Computers, Cellphones, etc how many Americans do you think it is going to affect?

Let's say you got lucky and you agree with the Communist Party. Okay, so that's "generally leaving you alone"? Or is it completely prohibiting you from ever being exposed to any information -- no matter how true or false or unverified -- that could give you a second thought about your party line?

Let me be the first to say that the second such a scenario affects anyone of my countrymen, I am no longer being left alone. Censorship for the sole interests of a political regime is unacceptable.

Here's a "rumor" for you: The United States government will readily murder non-citizens for oil. Is it true? Who cares? I just said it! Try saying anything like that about the Chinese government while you're on their little telecom service and enjoy your slow decline as you are forced to view the world through their custom-made-ever-shifting looking glass.

Sophie's choice (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016732)

Okay, you value freedom of speech very highly. It's a fair point.

Now let's see if your valuation of that right should be applied to everyone.

1) Would you sign an NDA preventing you from badmouthing a company, in return for universal health care from that company?

2) Would you sign that NDA if a parent were diagnosed with cancer?

3) Would you sign that NDA if *you* were diagnosed with cancer?

4) Would you prevent all others from signing that NDA, in those circumstances?

It's not quite as cut-and-dried as you make it out to be. Many people think speech should be restricted for subjects that they feel strongly about: hate speech, bullying speech, Fox News bias, and so on. The opinion that freedom of speech is priceless and immutable is not universal by a long shot.

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean that it's not the best choice for everyone.

Re:Sophie's choice (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016802)

WTF? You think China has universal health care? You think they give out cancer treatment like candy? Where do you think said cancer treatment was developed and incubated? Jesus H. Christ you need to move to China ... or like read The Good Earth or just get educated. http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2378/2089 [uic.edu]

Re:Are You Satirical or a Fool? (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016778)

phrases like "people will get much better services for the money" and "The Chinese motivation for doing things in an expert, professional manner" are clues that the speaker was being facetious. you bit hook, line and sinker. whoosh!!

Better Value For Service? Really? (1)

cmholm (69081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016746)

For all the bad things people will point out, the sum total is that people will get much better services for the money. The Chinese motivation for doing things in an expert, professional manner will more than compensate for the loss of government control.

You're joking, right? You seem to labor under the mistaken impression that the Chinese have replicated and scaled up the Japanese example of the '70's - '90's that you've likely familiar with. In reality, they're emulating the Japanese example of the '00's - '30's, featuring a rapid build up of manufacturing and infrastructure, while externalizing much of the cost of doing it "right".

That's not necessarily the "wrong" approach. Make it work now, make it work beautifully later is a path all OECD economies have trod at one point or another. "Have trod" being the operative phrase.

So, yes, the Chinese could be *that* much worse. Across the developing world, the tendency is to contract out to Chinese firms for infrastructure they're willing to cut corners on, but go for US, European, Korean, or Brazilian firms when they need it done right the first time.

Re:Please, please, please do this!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016882)

Holy shit!!! Seriously???

So you think speech should be restricted simply because some people object to it? You even list Fox News (with whom I personally disagree most of the time): so you advocate that the State decide what people hear as news?

Even if you have no clue what free speech really means, you still get to spout your ignorant bullshit. If you don't understand that: fuck you.

Maybe a good wakeup call (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016326)

This may be a good wakeup call for the US mobile operators. There have been many reports of spotty coverage that go unfix for long time, bad customer services, bad pricing/overcharging/mandatory data plan/roaming fees. If China Telecom does expand into US, I don't know how well they will do; but I would guess they would do quite a few things differently otherwise they wouldn't invest to enter a somewhat already saturated market.

Re:Maybe a good wakeup call (2)

Bill Dimm (463823) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016560)

a somewhat already saturated market

I have to disagree that the market is saturated. In a competitive market, prices are driven toward the cost of production (plus a normal return on investment) since competitors will undercut each other to get business until they reach that point. Without sufficient competition that doesn't happen, and pricing reflects profit maximization -- i.e., companies charge the most that consumers are willing to pay and reap substantial profits. With U.S. telecoms charging $0.10 for text messages when it costs virtually nothing (certainly not $0.10 or even $0.05) to provide the service, I would say we are quite far from saturation.

No problem, but they only get 49% ... (4, Insightful)

drnb (2434720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016464)

China Telecom Mulls Entry Into US Telecoms Market

No problem. But China Telecom must do so through a joint venture where they only get 49% ownership and their partners with 51% must be domestic US companies. I'm sure China Telecom will understand how this is the manner in which to invest in a foreign country while tailoring operations to the foreign culture and history and thereby maximizing success. A win-win for everyone right?

And turn over designs to their partners ... (1)

drnb (2434720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016622)

China Telecom Mulls Entry Into US Telecoms Market

No problem. But China Telecom must do so through a joint venture where they only get 49% ownership and their partners with 51% must be domestic US companies. I'm sure China Telecom will understand how this is the manner in which to invest in a foreign country while tailoring operations to the foreign culture and history and thereby maximizing success. A win-win for everyone right?

Oops. I forgot. China Telecom must also turn over the designs of their products to their US partners. This will allow for better adaptation and localization to the US market. Another win-win for everyone right?

Re:No problem, but they only get 49% ... (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016800)

Then they can just control the joint venture through complex license agreements, just like how McDonald's, KFC, baidu.com, and sina.com do in China. We certainly have plenty of lawyers to create the arrangement. Lawyers roam everywhere on earth. Rules, Chinese or American, are only for those who can't afford one.

Let them in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016478)

If we believe in competition, capitalism, blah blah blah,then lets let them put their money where their mouth is. If it is truly cheaper than that is a good thing, especially with our telecoms trying to consolidate into one big conglomerate monopoly. ...as for the industrial espionage,give the cheap phones to your teenage daughters. Then the chinese can listen to all their drama, random banter, and the latest on lil' bieber.

The NSA will love it (2)

max2312312 (2486294) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016530)

Finally a telecom company that has lots of experience working with the government.

fuck no! (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016708)

they poisoned our baby formula, candy, toothpaste, pet food, etc.; sell us radioactive drywall; put lead in our baby toys; spy on us; shamelessly counterfeit all kinds of technologies and products; used google to censor and limit information; and now they want to run our phones?!?! FUCK NO!!

(didn't mention tiananmen square or tibet, since if that mattered to anyone we'd be doing something about it already)

Going back to the south (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38016742)

When I was visiting my brothers in Georgia, we heard a news report that Ashville, NC had been labelled a "Cesspool of Sin" by one of the local legislators due to the large number of "hippies, liberals and textile artists". I can understand a cesspool of sin. I can't understand why a Chinese telecom company operating in the US is a good idea. What could possibly go wrong with tons of Chinese-owned communications equipment scattered around the country?

Tip for domestic providers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38016976)

Create posters where on one side you see someone making a phone call, and on the other side a couple of chinese sitting at a big box wearing big, old style headphones, smiling at each other and thumbs-up, while being dressed in green Mao-suits.

The caller has a text-balloon "Can you hear me now?"

The Chinese have a thought-balloon (Hai! We hear you perfectly!)

If China Telecom responds by making similar posters featuring NSA-types in black suits, we still win.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>