Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Companies Pledge To Stop Monopolistic Practices

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the take-it-with-a-mine-of-salt dept.

China 68

hackingbear writes "China's two telecommunications giants, China Telecom and China Unicom, announced Friday they will substantially raise their broadband speeds while further lowering broadband costs by 35% over the next five years. They also acknowledge the existence of monopolistic practices in reply to a recently launched investigation, which is the first of its kind against major Chinese state-owned enterprises. Being state-owned companies, their profits supposedly belong to the nation, but they have also become 'golden rice bowls' for their management and employees, and their supervising departments and officials." If the Chinese government would like to investigate these companies' monopolistic behavior, I have a suggestion on where to start looking.

cancel ×

68 comments

In other news (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262020)

Slashdot moderators pledge to stop first post.

Re:In other news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262164)

Women have monopory on poon tang. They no share with me! Prease stop monoporistic plactices!

Sincelery,
Sad and ronery Chinese man

Re:In other news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262222)

Women have monopory on poon tang.

I had some Poon Tang when I was in Korea. It was a little "gamey" but with a spicy sauce is quite good.

Re:In other news (-1, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262408)

Serious response to a troll post:

Women in China have monopory on poon tang because China has a one-child policy, and boys are more desirable than girls. that has led to many infant females being euthanized or given up for adoption. In some rural villages, the policy has forced many to inbreed because the only available females are those related to the men in question.

And that is one reason why China will never be relevant in the modern world. I do support a one-child policy, everywhere in the world, but the couples in the more primitive cock-waving countries need to treat the girls as equals to the boys and accept what they get. As my female bio teacher used to tell me, "Sperm are cheap. Eggs are expensive." Also, the energy-producing [wikipedia.org] organelle of cells is inherited exclusively from the mother.

That's not to say that American ladies have the right idea, it does nothing but hurt their case when they decide to avoid developing personalities to concentrate on being snotty and pretty, even as they never learn how to properly wipe their own asses before sex. Get in there and wipe 'till there's no spots on the paper. This is not an isolated incident, it is a problem for both models and chubbies alike.

A worldwide adoption and common-sense treatment of such a policy will ensure that resources are conserved and pussy is abundant.

Re:In other news (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262492)

That's not to say that American ladies have the right idea, it does nothing but hurt their case when they decide to avoid developing personalities to concentrate on being snotty and pretty

The funny thing is the flip side. There is nothing more bitter than a middle-aged woman whose beauty faded long ago, meanwhile the sexual attractiveness of men her age increases since they now make more money and have more sophistication than when they were younger.

The other hilarious thing? Look at those women who are snotty and pretty (but only physically). See the kind of guys they're with? They're assholes. They frequently mistreat them. Maybe they cheat on them. Their shallow nature and total lack of personality and sophistication long ago made them completely unattractive to smart, successful, kind-hearted men who are interested in long-term commitment and real love. Those men took one look at them and said "wow, what a total self-absorbed bitch, I've been with one of those before and let me tell you, it ain't worth it".

Every now and then you might encounter a real lady, a beautiful woman who doesn't use her vagina as a weapon of manipulation, who has a real heart and doesn't falsely think of that as a weakness, who reads a book once in a while, who respects herself enough not to let herself get fat, who is enough of an adult to understand that the only reason she would get fat or be bitchy is her own poor decision-making and no other reason, who has emotions but doesn't think they are a valid substitute for reason, and values a guy who is a gentleman and treats her with the kindness and understanding she deserves. This is a very, very rare individual. If you find one, treat her with great love and be certain to appreciate her for who she is and who she isn't, or else you commit a crime against nature.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38264000)

Respect the cock! And tame the cunt! Tame it! Take it on headfirst with the skills that I will teach you at work and say no! You will not control me! No! You will not take my soul! No! You will not win this game! Because it's a game, guys. You want to think it's not, huh? You want to think it's not? Go back to the schoolyard and you have that crush on big-titted Mary Jane. Respect the cock. You are embedding this thought. I am the one who's in charge. I am the one who says yes! No! Now! Here! Because it's universal, man. It is evolutional. It is anthropological. It is biological. It is animal. We... are... men!

FTFY

Re:In other news (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262338)

but they have also become 'golden rice bowls'

Anyone else find that racist? It is equivalent to a story about black people calling it "golden fried chicken bucket". It's a lame stereotype. Can we not have these in the front page please?

Re:In other news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262606)

Damn fool honkey! That is what black people be calling it.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262624)

No, I don't find it racist. Most stereotypes are true.

Re:In other news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262714)

No, I don't find it racist. Most stereotypes are true.

How's your mom's basement? Still a virgin at 40?

Re:In other news (4, Interesting)

kingturkey (930819) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262656)

Golden rice bowl is (you probably could have guessed this) a Chinese idiom meaning a high paying, stable job. Besides, it's not a stereotype, almost all meals in China (and other Asian countries as well) have a rice component. The word for meal is the same as rice.

http://www.targetchinese.com/targetpedia/a-stable-high-paying-job/ [targetchinese.com]

Re:In other news (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262696)

I admit I startled a bit when I saw "golden rice bowl" but I figured it was probably a translated idiom. It's like when somebody refers to their average job as their "bread and butter".

Re:In other news (1)

wisty (1335733) | more than 2 years ago | (#38263110)

In the south, yes. Most meals in the north of China are wheat based. Rice isn't uncommon in the north, but wheat noodles, wheat dumplings, pancakes, and bread are the bases for a lot of meals.

But rice is still used in a lot of expressions.

Re:In other news (3, Informative)

blackicye (760472) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262772)

but they have also become 'golden rice bowls'

Anyone else find that racist? It is equivalent to a story about black people calling it "golden fried chicken bucket". It's a lame stereotype. Can we not have these in the front page please?

The "Iron Rice Bowl" is actually an actual Chinese expression generally used to refer to a career in the Government service / Civil service. So it's not exactly racist. It's similar to the "Golden Parachutes" that they use to refer to Western severance packages.

Re:In other news (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262922)

The iron rice bowl means their source of food cannot be broken easily. Think of it as employment for life.
Golden rice bowl is probably the "1%" version of that.

We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (5, Funny)

captainkoloth (99341) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262022)

We can show you how to have a duopoly instead!

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (3, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262030)

How can a communist government's state owned corporation have anything but a monopoly?

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262082)

Architecturally, there isn't anything requiring a communist government to not pit multiple state-owned enterprises against one another in an attempt to make them more efficient(in fact, a communist government might actually be the shareholder most willing to do so; because it can maximize its effective 'value' by making the enterprises it owns more efficient, rather than by making them more effective rent-seekers, as an owner who can profit only by collecting rents and not by collecting taxes would have to...).

There is absolutely no assurance that they would actually be thus motivated, and, in practice, you'd probably see roughly the same level of monopolistic behavior and general rent-seeking obstructionism from a state-owned corporation as you would from an ostensibly-private 'regulated monopoly', like old-school Ma Bell; but there isn't any theoretical problem preventing it from happening...

Pitting individuals, departments, project development teams, etc. against each other in order to induce greater effort is hardly unknown among organizations that 'own' both sides of the competition they set up. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes it is a terrible idea; but it is empirically undeniable that (if they think that the benefits of internal competition will be greater than the waste of internal duplication of effort) people will sometimes pit their assets against one another.

After all, if it were necessary that state-owned telcos be a monopoly, why would there be more than one?

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (2)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262902)

I'm still wondering how a country that touts a communist style government (and China is not the only country that does this) is able to produce billionaires and a wealthy social class that mirrors US and European social hierarchical class structures.. China's rhetoric is always focused on running a government that is solely dedicated to making sure everything is shared equally for the "people".

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38263462)

As opposed to the free market capitalist utopia Amerika?
Land of the "American Dream"?
Land where the 20% of the population who's future was sold as collateral protests the 1% who bought it?
Land where the remaining 79% tells that 20% to get back to making collateral so they can finish what they started?

Face it, central management or otherwise: the golden rule is "those who have the gold make the rules", and "equality" is a lie used to convince everyone but the billionaires they got as much as they deserved and no less(lest they eat the billionaires) so keep "dreaming". Time will tell how long they'll stay asleep before they reach for their steak knives.

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (1)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 2 years ago | (#38268398)

I believe that was cavreader's point. China has the same problems as America, the difference is that in China, the corporations ARE the government where as in the US, the corporations have to keep buying the government and it is at least theoretically possible to change that equation. There are enough of a vocal idiot minority in the Occupy movement that think socialism is a good idea and don't see it is just making the current problem permanent instead of fixing it.

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38263802)

It's the same as other countries that tout the democratic free speech thing but do their very best to minimize democratic effects and free speech so that those in power stay in power.

For the record, I think any attempt of Marxism we have seen has started with violating it's biggest cornerstones: everyone equal, including those in 'power', and no personal ownership of stuff.
Calling it by a different name with communism helps me more easily explain the difference to the ignorant who can only accept capitalism as valid. But think about this for a second:
Capitalism works and thrives in a society of egocentric individuals.
Marxism/communism works and thrives in a society of altruistic people.

Which would you prefer to live in?

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38266232)

Both seem like crappy options when you put it that way.

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38267130)

Communism, Marxism, and hardcore Socialism have a tendency to begin with mass slaughter of anyone who might disagree with those "freeing" the people from their capitalist masters. The funny thing is that the most outspoken cheerleaders for these types of governments are usually the first ones to end up in front of the firing squad. The liberal and progressive minded students that agitated for the glorious Iranian revolution in 79 where shown the door when the revolution was complete. Too bad they wasted their time poking the US in the eye with the hostages and let the mullahs take control of process. We are about to see a replay of this in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Viva Revolution!

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266634)

Politicians are liars, aren't they? BTW, do you think all share holders are "equal"?

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262084)

The problem doesn't seems to be with being a monopoly, but with monopolistic practices. Being a monopoly is not illegal "anywhere" in the world, but using the power of the monopoly to fuck other companies is. The same goes for a duopoly - it's legal as long as both companies don't use their power to fuck other companies. This doesn't mean they have to play nice, but they can't legally use any of the classical Microsoft tactics.

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (3, Informative)

NotSanguine (1917456) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262182)

The organization I work for has links from both companies. We'd love to have access to other ISPs, but they don't exist. You do the math.

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262734)

Being a monopoly is not illegal "anywhere" in the world

You're splitting hairs. "Being" a monopoly is not illegal but acting like one is.

But you're wrong. A company does not have to act like a monopoly to be prosecuted by the US Justice Department under the anti-trust laws. They're civil prosecutions, not criminal, but prosecutions nonetheless.

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (4, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262134)

How can a communist government's state owned corporation have anything but a monopoly?

It's easy. A five-star general runs a corporation, a government minister runs a corporation, and a party chief also runs a corporation. Each interest wants their own cut of the industry in the state.

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262448)

How can a communist government's state owned corporation have anything but a monopoly?

It's easy. A five-star general runs a corporation, a government minister runs a corporation, and a party chief also runs a corporation. Each interest wants their own cut of the industry in the state.

You don't know any shit, do you?

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262284)

Monopoly or not - they have pledged to both raise speeds and lower rates. AT&T engages in "monopolistic practices", but I don't see them lowering their rates any time soon.

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262418)

Boycott att. Now that the iphone doesn't force the necessary evil fire iphone fans, lets see a boycott!

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262420)

The Chinese don't have quite the sophistication in bread and circuses technology that we do; but this deficiency does lead them to the salubrious habit of occasionally having an unpopular former occupant of an important position shot to appease public anger or for losing some political power struggle...

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265162)

Ever since Deng's administration, China has been communist in name only.

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (0, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262098)

The summary:

...but they have also become 'golden rice bowls' for their management and employees...

Yes, golden rice bowls in every household!

Rice tastes better when it's served in gold,
But you'd better eat quick if you don't want mold.

Keeping your currency low makes you bold,
But buying your cheap, broken shit is getting old.

Some may say that this post is a troll,
But fuck you all, I have a golden rice bowl.

Burma Shave.

Re:We Americans can show the Chinese Telcos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262330)

Already has two, let the new Oligarc step forward!

The difference is... (1)

artifactual (955774) | more than 2 years ago | (#38276588)

In soviet China, the government owns the largest corporations

First POstttt from the Golden Girls (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262034)

Thank you for being a friend Traveled down the road and back again your heart is true you're a pal and a cosmonaut And if you threw a party Invited everyone you knew You would see, the biggest gift would be from me and the card attached would say, Thank you for being a friend

both companies are state owned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262124)

So this is probably a move by the Chinese government to expand internet access to more people.

Correction (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262218)

Actually, this story was translated incorrectly. It reported that the Chinese telecoms promised to "stop monopolistic practices".

The correct translation is that they promised that they would "not come in your mouth".

See, Chinese is a very difficult language, and there is always a subtext.

Re:Correction (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262532)

The correct translation is that they promised that they would "not come in your mouth".

See, Chinese is a very difficult language, and there is always a subtext.

Can't you guys please stop all your racist rants on /. ??

Re:Correction (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262710)

Can't you guys please stop all your racist rants on /. ??

"Racist"? Are you insane?

You must be one of those hot-headed Swedes.

Re:Correction (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38264696)

Can't you guys please stop all your racist rants on /. ??

I'm serious. Can you really not see that my comment was not the least bit racist, but anti-corporate? Anti-monopolistic? Or do you see the word "Chinese" and just assume racism? it wasn't the "Chinese" part that was being knocked but that a telco would "promise" to not be monopolistic.

Come on, you've been around a while apparently. I have to assume some level of reading comprehension.

Chinese is actually a very difficult language for Westerners and I happen to know first-hand that when reading Mandarin there is always a subtext.

Please be a little more careful when throwing around the label racist, Taco Cowboy. Have a little respect for Slashdot if not for your fellow commenters, OK?

Re:Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38274436)

I cannot agree that there is always a subtext in Mandarin, but there most definitely is always a subtext when reading from the Xinhua stable of publications.
 

Pedant point (4, Insightful)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262250)

They are lowering their broadband costs by 35%, but what about their prices?

Re:Pedant point (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38263178)

They are lowering their broadband costs by 35%, but what about their prices?

Easily achieved by pulling 35% of the cables out of the wall every week. As a boon, all that cable pulling creates jobs!

We could also re-connect the ones we pulled out the previous week, but while this creates jobs it also raises costs in the long run.

Long live the great firewall!

Re:Pedant point (1)

weiqj (870224) | more than 2 years ago | (#38265626)

Currently price without contract is 100RMB/month, with one year contract about 40RMB/month. 1 RMB is about 0.1571 USD. Actually the absolute value is much cheaper than that of US. However compared to average income it's relatively more expensive.

Re:Pedant point (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266744)

40RMB is about 4 big Mac in China.

"China Unicom" is an awesome name (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262266)

in fonts where m looks like rn.

Re:"China Unicom" is an awesome name (2)

M8e (1008767) | more than 2 years ago | (#38263448)

I just now realised that it was a m, and I did indeed think that China Unicorn was an awesome name.

Re:"China Unicom" is an awesome name (1)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | more than 2 years ago | (#38264386)

Ditto, had the same reaction.

Here is different (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262268)

Yep, in Canada is different, we are capitalist country, without monopoly, and with free market, and.....actually with only two big telcos, but don't say that they are de facto monopoly, as we live in free country. No, no and NO. And the little fact that these two big non-monopoly free market companies are pushing the government to accept some bills which could effectively kill any competition is just naked, communist, anti-capitalist lie.

Re:Here is different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262698)

Canada is as fucked as anybody with two big players Bell and Rogers trying to muscle out the small players.
And unlike China, we have no central government that's going to do do squat about it, because all the slimeball politicians need big business for their continued election support.

China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262272)

LOL... corrupt government is corrupt

Just wait till they start storming your country a la Red Dawn.

Deja vu... (1)

hahn (101816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262320)

Gee, the article kinda sounds like it's talking about AT&T and Verizon. Except the part about them promising to raise bandwidth while lowering costs. "Golden rice bowls" definitely applies.

This is a joke (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262352)

What is amounts to is that America is about to keep them out of here due to their spying, but they are hoping that if we they open up what should NEVER have been blocked in the first place, that we will not close them down.
At this time, it is in the west's best interest for us to kill that idea as well as start raising trade barriers unless they will start honoring their treaty obligations.

Hopefully, O will not be as stupid or greedy as W/neo-cons were.

Re:This is a joke (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262430)

I'm glad to read, in the face of a 2+ trillion dollar trade deficit, that someone here agrees we need protective tariffs! Every economy that its still solvent has them.

Re:This is a joke (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262572)

I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not but the USA does have protective tariffs already. It was amusing to see the free trade agreement come in between Australia and the USA where the USA wanted tariffs to be removed off their exports but no mention was made regarding the USA tariffs on lamb, wheat and steel...

Re:This is a joke (1)

joocemann (1273720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262610)

Re:This is a joke (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38266834)

how about value [voxeu.org] added [ieee.org] content?

Re:This is a joke (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38262682)

As a Canadian I would like to note that it is also not unheard of for the US to illegally raise tariffs on goods that are already under a free trade agreement.

Personally, I'm not against tariffs. They are an effective way to deal strategically with important policy. In Japan, for instance, there are tariffs on food imports that are intended to deal with food security and ensure that an agricultural industry can exist on a series of islands full of volcanoes. It is arguably much more cost effective to import food, but the memory of millions of starving people as a result of blockades during WWII make it obvious that cheaper is not always better. The only problem is that they don't stick with it (the dream of agricultural self sufficiency has slipped badly).

My impression of US tariffs is that they haven't been particularly effective. They appear to be reactionary, punative and lack any real long term strategy. The US seems to play hardball all the time, bullying their way into short term gain, but overlooking long term goals. It's not so much that they shouldn't be assigning tariffs, but rather they should be a lot more selective about the tariffs they assign.

Re:This is a joke (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262812)

I am not saying that we need or want trade barriers. However, when somebody is cheating badly, there is just no sense in going this way. They were suppose to have honored the treaties nearly 7 years ago. They have actually made things worse with America and are trying hard to get EU to be just as stupid. Thank God that EU has NOT given into that. They still have the bulk of their manufacturing in place.

Hey Man, You Just Slashdotted The People's Daily (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 2 years ago | (#38262588)

There's just gotta be something wrong with that picture.

What next? "'The Cool, Fresh Taste of Marlboro Cigarrettes is the Opiate of the People' -- Karl Marx".

stonecrusher (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38263376)

stone crusher [stonecrushermobile.org]
[konusnye-drobilki.ru]
coal mill [coal-mill.net]
Chancador [chancador.org]
Machacadora [triturador...acadora.mx]
mobile crusher [trackmobilecrushers.com]
There's just gotta be something wrong with that picture

stone crusher (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38263390)

stone crusher [stonecrushermobile.org]
[konusnye-drobilki.ru]
coal mill [coal-mill.net]
Chancador [chancador.org]
Machacadora [triturador...acadora.mx]
mobile crusher [trackmobilecrushers.com]

[url=http://www.stonecrushermobile.org]stone crusher[/url]
[url=http://www.trackmobilecrushers.com]mobile crusher[/url]
[url=http://www.konusnye-drobilki.ru] [/url]
[url=http://www.coal-mill.net]coal mill[/url]
[url=http://www.chancador.org]chancador[/url]
[url=http://www.trituradoras-machacadora.mx]Machacadora[/url]

great (-1, Offtopic)

dressonsale (2524650) | more than 2 years ago | (#38263488)

thanks for your post,cheap wedding dress [cheap-dres...edding.com]

There's a lot more to this than meets the eye (5, Interesting)

LS (57954) | more than 2 years ago | (#38263564)

As an internet developer in China, I can tell you that the duopoly posed by these two companies is wrecking havoc on the Chinese internet. First, a bit of history:

Around 2001, there was only one company controlling most of China's internet access, and that was China Telecom. Jiang Mianheng, the eldest son of the Chinese President at the time, Jiang Zemin, took in hundred of millions in investment to start a new telecommunications company, China Netcom. They struggled for a while trying to compete, but China Telecom's dominance prevented them from getting much headway in the market. Jiang Zemin then used his massive leverage to break up China Telecom, and give 1/3 of its business, all in northern China, to China Netcom. This caused serious enmity between the two entities. Eventually China Netcom was purchased by China Unicom, the second largest mobile provider in China. So now you have China Telecom and China Unicom as the two major telecommunications entities in China.

Do to the bad blood between the two, the connectivity between the Unicom and Telecom backbones is utter shit. International lines are connected through Telecom's backbone through Shanghai and other hubs further south, so if you are on Unicom, expect international connections to be utter shit. I'm in Beijing, and most home and small business connections are on Unicom. 90% of the time international connectivity is slow or non-existent.

We have clients in Shanghai, which is mostly Telecom, our server is on Unicom here in Beijing, and they get dropped connections 1 out of every 5 or 6 requests. We had to set up a proxy in Shanghai to get around this. If you do a traceroute from a Unicom ADSL connection to a Telecom server, you can see response times jump to 300-400ms where the hand-off occurs.

It's fucking infuriating. You basically have to either build a convoluted topology and set up some serious monitoring, or pay exorbitant extortion fees and get on a BGP network to have solid nation-wide service for your customers. As a small start-up we are opting for the first for now.

Hopefully this government probe will also deal with these sorts of deeper issues as well, because these problems are seriously crippling the Chinese internet as a good place to do business.

LS

Malice or Stupidity? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38263658)

As a long term expat in china its nice to see some improvement in the Speed department. The internet here is besides being censored just slow here compared to...well somalia maybe. it also depends on location for example if your in BJ you can get (for $$$) lightningfast internet. But just outside the provincial border (hebei) its like 56k on good days and it does not matter how much you pay.

But i dont think its all greed. If there is the choice between malice and stupidity its usually the latter. China became a Developed country overnight, the roads and city designs are a great example of that. in 2006 the city of ningbo was just a well designed clean, nice and modern city. Today its still a modern city however with a 24/7 traffic jam. The internet is kinda like that. The existing infrastructures where not designed for THAT many people expecting Highspeed internet.

Check for New 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...