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!

Mexican Hotel Chain Outsources IT To US

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the backwards-day dept.

Cloud 125

cweditor writes "Grupo Posadas has five data centers supporting more than 100 hotels and other lines of business, but it's moving almost all of those operations to a service provider in Texas. Could cloud service providers help the U.S. become a destination for tech outsourcing instead of an exporter of tech jobs? One stumbling block: The U.S. finds itself on the receiving end of protectionist legislation in other countries that discourages use of non-domestic IT service providers, says the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation."

cancel ×

125 comments

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

Host in USA - get free backup (5, Funny)

Keruo (771880) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822277)

Todays offer, host in USA, get free backup from NSA.
Only problem is getting back the copies once the cloud service crashes/vanishes underneath.

Re:Host in USA - get free backup (1)

coldsalmon (946941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822583)

Especially if the NSA outsources its storage to the same cloud service.

Re:Host in USA - get free backup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40824779)

Obligatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/908/

Re:Host in USA - get free backup (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822815)

Todays offer, host in USA, get free backup from NSA.

Only problem is getting back the copies once the cloud service crashes/vanishes underneath.

Dealing with the NSA is orders of magnitude better than dealing with the Mexican drug cartels.

Re:Host in USA - get free backup (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822963)

Only one will shoot you for a reason.

Re:Host in USA - get free backup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40823601)

Host your data in the USA
And get free backup from the NSA
But when your servers all go black
Good luck getting your data back...

logical conclusion (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822287)

Illegal Mexicans in Texas must be cheaper than legal Mexicans in Mexico.

Re:logical conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822487)

Or: workforce procurement trolling... like a boss!

Re:logical conclusion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822733)

No, thats the only point why they get shitty jobs there.

Cue Twilight Zone theme (1)

H3xx (662833) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822307)

Meanwhile, in a parallel universe...

Blatant lie (4, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822311)

"The US finds itself on the receiving end of protectionist legislation in other countries that discourages use of non-domestic IT service providers"

That is a misrepresentation. most country I know of which view the US cloud service warrily, do because of the privacy protection of their citizen. One cannot guarantee any privacy protection once the data is on US soil. Neitehr can one guanrantee that the US will not subponea the data. THAT is the reason some country do not want their cloud data in the US, or outside their own juridiction for what it matters.

Re:Blatant lie (5, Interesting)

Tailhook (98486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822491)

Even if one accepts the claim that the US is a privacy liability, that claim is orthogonal to whether other nations impede US services with protectionism — those two possibilities may coexist just fine. Despite this obvious fallacy the parent characterizes the latter as a `blatant lie' while citing nothing credible.

Please try not mod this nonsense up. I know we're supposed to indulge privacy outrage around here but the parent is crap. Find some other, less stupid malcontent to amplify.

Re:Blatant lie (4, Informative)

Tridus (79566) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822555)

Actually, it's not. The US government screams "protectionism" when other countries pass things like privacy laws that don't allow you to store private data outside the country precisely because of the US government's fondness for spying on everything. If you have to keep data private legally, it's a pretty bad start when a cloud provider shows up and can't explain why they won't have to hand a Canadian business' data on Canadian customers over to a US spy agency on totally arbitrary conditions.

Sometimes the two aren't related, but sometimes they are.

Re:Blatant lie (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822613)

precisely because of the US government's fondness for spying on everything.

Yet again another ridiculous claim without a single reference to support it.

Please point to any credible source that documents the REASON the US "screams" protectionism about data storage.
Also please point to one documented incidence of the US "screaming" protectionism with regard to other country's data storage laws.

Re:Blatant lie (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822961)

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/reports-and-publications/2012-1 [ustr.gov]

With things like:

In November 2011, new draft legislation was introduced into Parliament that would prohibit the overseas
storage of any Australian electronic health records. This would pose a significant trade barrier for U.S.
information technology companies with data centers located in the United States or anywhere else outside
of Australia.

Re:Blatant lie (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823059)

Screaming? Hardly. Nobody ever head of this site, and nothing was done about the proposal, and the bill died in committee.

Some companies complained. Big deal. NOTHING came of it. The Government did nothing.

Next?

Re:Blatant lie (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823659)

You mightn't have heard of the United Staes Trade Representative, but they are the government and everyone who cares about international trade certainly has heard of them. That a foreign government has or hasn't passed a bill is irrelevant to whether the US made noise about it. In fact not passing a bill might be an indication that the noise worked.

And yes that is screaming - not to the public since the public aren't the intended audience. Not the actual publication but the talking about it.

And applying diplomatic pressure is what governments do to each other, and that is what was done. What were you expecting the US to do? Send in the marines?

There's no need for a next you'll just move the goal posts again.

Re:Blatant lie (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823725)

Of the Australian government succumbs to "Pressure" of a two line blub in mean-nothing publication meant more to justify the Trade Rep's budget with the front office than anything else, well, that's your problem.

Yet that appears to be exactly what you are claiming: The Australian Government rolled over in the face of this single whispered sentence and canceled their plans to require patient date to be kept in-country.

Unbelievable. Such spines!

Re:Blatant lie (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40824461)

No the blurb is irrelevant, the report is irrelevant, but you wanted a link for your own reasons.

The campaigning at embassies and dinners so on is what they succumb of don't succumb to, but you won't see any of the details of that short of someone sending them to wikileaks.

And no I didn't claim that the Australian Government rolled. You claimed that. I don't know what happened with the legislation and don't care enough to look it up.

Re:Blatant lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825215)

Wow, talk about some back-to-front logic there buddy. The US complained so the bill died and that's a good thing how? For more discussion of this, see here:

http://delimiter.com.au/2012/04/13/us-slams-australias-on-shore-cloud-fixation/

Re:Blatant lie (1)

Muros (1167213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823025)

precisely because of the US government's fondness for spying on everything.

Yet again another ridiculous claim without a single reference to support it.

Please point to any credible source that documents the REASON the US "screams" protectionism about data storage. Also please point to one documented incidence of the US "screaming" protectionism with regard to other country's data storage laws.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=American+data+centre+privacy+laws [lmgtfy.com]

Re:Blatant lie (0)

suutar (1860506) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822707)

parent didn't categorize anything as a 'blatant lie'. Parent didn't even use the words 'blatant' or 'lie'.

Re:Blatant lie (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822955)

parent didn't categorize anything as a 'blatant lie'. Parent didn't even use the words 'blatant' or 'lie'.

I know that starting a message in the subject line is highly annoying and far too frequent, so it's understandable that some people don't bother reading the subject lines anymore. When you're going to say that someone didn't use certain words, though, you might want to double check.

Re:Blatant lie (2)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822885)

GP is correct. It is not protectionism that keeps confidential data from here in the UK heading your way. It is clearly and specifically the fact that you have less regard for privacy than is generally expected of a developed democratic country.
I have been told here on /. that this is because companies are obliged to squeeze every last penny penny out of their assets ore its officers will find themselves on the end of some sort of legal action. Is it true that if a company does not reserve the right to sell my details to every advertiser it can, they will be in trouble?

Re:Blatant lie (2)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823327)

Is it true that if a company does not reserve the right to sell my details to every advertiser it can, they will be in trouble?

Well that would only be true in a limited sense. For example, with a company like Facebook now that it is public - yes, this could be partially true. A company whose business model is collecting data and selling advertisements based on that data would not make their shareholders happy if they decided not to fully utilize that data. However, if a company had a business model of "we provide secure cloud services" (oh say like Amazon EC2 or Microsoft Azure or something like that, or even like say Dropbox) their shareholders would not like it if the company jeopardized their entire business by not keeping the stored data as confidential as possible. Only as the company started to fail on its own (like dropbox could now that Google Drive and Microsoft Skydrive are attacking their turf) would the shareholders then want to extract all the possible value from the data that they have. They still wouldn't want to do it illegally though as the lawsuits could eat up the shareholder value before they can cash out.

The main risk to data is that it can be subpoenaed by the Government fairly easily. That's really the data risk you have in the US.

Re:Blatant lie (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826221)

That *IS* the excuse given loudly and repeatedly. However, the real reason is that they are greedy short sighted bastards and the law here does nothing to stop them.

They are perfectly free to not dart, tattoo, tag, and radio collar each customer like a bear in the wild as long as they mumble something about hoping to attract privacy minded customers or foreign outsourcing. They can do that for the same reason they aren't obligated to maximize the week's profits in return for bankrupting the company the next week.

Re:Blatant lie (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826195)

Not really. Other countries (for example, members of the EU) do indeed have legislation that prevents outsourcing cloud services to the U.S. (that isn't really disputed), but it is wrong to characterize them as protectionism. It's simply a natural consequence of them having actual privacy protections and the U.S. having anti-privacy laws that are in conflict.

Re:Blatant lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40827261)

OK, in Europe, the biggest concern with any kind of data sharing with the US is the privacy thing. You remember how long it took to get an agreement to share even the fairly innocuous information that is currently shared on transatlantic plane passengers, no? It's all about the different legislative regime in the US, where personal privacy is given much weaker protections.

Re:Blatant lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822517)

As if the US is the only country that invades people's privacy? Nice try.

Re:Blatant lie (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823003)

No, you are not the only one. You are one of the best though.

Re:Blatant lie (3, Interesting)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823035)

Of course not, they're just one such country who also happens to be a country with a pretty large IT industry so that it might actually be an issue.

Yes, Iran invades people's privacy as well - but Iran isn't high on the list of places to buy "cloud storage" from.

China does to, but while China is a popular IT outsourcing destination I haven't seen a lot of "cloud storage" stuff from their (or India) - network connectivity is significantly worse than the US after all.

The underlying issue is non-domestic storage. It doesn't matter what country it is in, you have reduced the protection of your data. Now both your local government and a foreign government can request your data (and the foreign one can also physically take the hard drives). Maybe if your local government is in the business of taking physical servers by force but not doing anything about someone refusing to supply requested data you gain something - but that seems an unlikely combination.

Re:Blatant lie (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#40824031)

"...I haven't seen a lot of "cloud storage" stuff from their (or India)..."

A little OT, but did you read the news from the AP today about 370 MILLION people in India being without power. From what I've read, rolling blackouts are notorious over there. If they don't even have the most basic electrical infrastructure and power generation up to par, how could we (everyone else) trust India for reliable cloud based services hosted inside their own border?

I'd be curious to know of any of the outsourced IT phone support vendors were effected. If so, how much of the call volume got routed back to the US?

Re:Blatant lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825877)

Yes, because a grid failure has never happened in the US. Oh, wait.......

Re:Blatant lie (1)

Muros (1167213) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823067)

As if the US is the only country that invades people's privacy? Nice try.

Yeah, screw those hippies in Europe. We should be like North Korea, or Zimbabwe, or Iran.

Re:Blatant lie (4, Interesting)

Concern (819622) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822771)

Hmm. I'm usually the first one to point out mistaken beliefs about US superiority in general, or certainly in terms of privacy protection or civil rights.

I can't speak for Mexico. However, I don't believe i.e. India offers any privacy protection that the US does not. In fact, in most outsourcing hotspots around South or Central America or the Pac Rim, you not only have even fewer stated protections, but you are dealing with governments that are even less, shall we say, predictable. You also have to be concerned about how safe and easy it is to do business (with i.e. an outsourcing firm, hosting company) in places where the quality of the civil courts is not so great. And, let's be real - in many nations where IT outsourcing once boomed, the court system is more a theater for bribery than a forum for the practice of law. And then there's the well-documented danger of collusion between the state and large domestic companies, or even organized crime, to a degree that even the US still blushes at (and the US does not blush at much, especially these days)...

I did once investigate whether it was possible for an American to go to India in reverse of what normally happens in IT - to study there, or take an IT job there, either for several years or perhaps to emigrate. I came away with the impression that it would be harder as an American citizen to go there, than as an Indian citizen, to come here.

I think our trade and immigration policies are often ridiculous, but especially so when, in our era of "free movement of goods," the US doesn't even extract bilateral agreements on the free movement of people, after speaking with the relevant lobbyists to determine what the visa quotas should be. :)

Re:Blatant lie (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 2 years ago | (#40824579)

Since the 1980s, congresspersons and staffers have been "going downtown" -- becoming lobbyistsâ"and the big draw is money.[79] The "lucrative world of K Street" means that former congresspersons with even "modest seniority" can move into jobs paying $1 million or more annually, without including bonuses for bringing in new clients.[79] The general concern of this revolving-door activity is that elected officialsâ"persons who were supposed to represent the interests of citizensâ"have instead become entangled with the big-money interests of for-profit corporations and interest groups with narrow concerns, and that public officials have been taken over by private interests.[53]

I'm sorry, what were you saying about theaters for bribery again?

Re:Blatant lie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40824787)

Since the 1980s, congresspersons and staffers have been "going downtown" - blah, blah, blah

I'm sorry, what were you saying about theaters for bribery again?

You should get out more.

As outrageous as you (and I) think that is, it's still pretty tame compared to some other countries.

Re:Blatant lie (1)

andyteleco (1090569) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826307)

I don't think you would have any major problems to work in India being a US citizen, any more than viceversa. The only question is if you would be willing to work for an Indian salary. I think that is the reason why the migration flow is pretty much unidirectional.

Not much shift in Jobs... (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822329)

Look, its fairly easy to get into the "cloud" business as the only barriers are financial, not technical.
Other than power, It costs about the same to run a data center with 200 cores as it costs to run one with 500 cores.
You might hire one more tech support person. Maybe. Probably not.

There will be few jobs outsourced to Texas, other than janitorial ones, because the hosting company
is only going to be running the machines, the Mexican hotel chain will still be managing them and
running their own booking software.

They are shedding physical plant, not jobs.

What they surrender is control. If the data center is accused of hosting some IP pirate nodes, the Mexican hotel
chain could find their servers are grabbed by the FBI in some heavy handed Anti-Pirate operation.

Re:Not much shift in Jobs... (1)

hguorbray (967940) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822339)

probably means a datacenter in texas and tech support from Chennai or some such place

-I'm just sayin'

Re:Not much shift in Jobs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822957)

and janitorial staff from ... mexico!

Re:Not much shift in Jobs... (1)

Cid Highwind (9258) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822399)

the Mexican hotel chain could find their servers are grabbed by the FBI in some heavy handed Anti-Pirate operation.

...or some drug enforcement operation, or terrorism, or tax-dodging, or anonymous/lulzsec/etc, or the next WikiLeaker, or just "National security letter. We don't have to tell you why, just hand over the servers."

I can only conclude that the countries with "protectionist legislation" that makes it hard to outsource their cloud data services to us are doing a service to their citizens.

Re:Not much shift in Jobs... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40823823)

Not only that, there is also a chance that your server even when it is unrelated get taken down simply because the FBI or the court order has taken everything down "just in case".

Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (5, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822371)

Top 5 reasons not to outsource to US:

5. Can't trust those Americans with your data.
4. You'll lose control over your infrastructure.
3. Low prices are temporary and will increase as the global economy continues to balance
2. Perceived cost savings are more than offset by the additional cost of having to spec everything out to the point where you're better off doing it yourself.
1. You won't be able to understand them when you call for support.

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822413)

Well, I blinked.

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822449)

Top 5 reasons not to outsource to US:

5. Can't trust those Americans with your data.
4. You'll lose control over your infrastructure.
3. Low prices are temporary and will increase as the global economy continues to balance
2. Perceived cost savings are more than offset by the additional cost of having to spec everything out to the point where you're better off doing it yourself.
1. You won't be able to understand them when you call for support.

5. Gringos ladrones.
4. Gringos ladrones.
3. Gringos ladrones.
2. Gringos ladrones.
1. Gringos no hablan español.

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource from US (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822467)

Top 5 reasons not to outsource from US:
5. Can't trust those Foreigners with your product.
4. You'll lose control over your infrastructure.
3. Low prices are temporary and will increase as the global economy continues to balance
2. Perceived cost savings are more than offset by the additional cost of having to spec everything out to the point where you're better off doing it yourself.
1. You won't be able to understand them when you call for support.

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (4, Interesting)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822559)

That strikes me as the top 5 reasons not to outsource anywhere.

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822701)

D'uh! Can you spell sarcasm?

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (2)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822821)

That strikes me as the top 5 reasons not to outsource anywhere.

On Slashdot, it's the top five reasons to peddle cheap cynicism. Even when something good happens... Hey, other countries want to move jobs here! ... some people bitch and moan, and are generally just looking for any excuse to complain about the United States.

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823353)

Understood. On the other hand, I can't help but imagine it from the standpoint of the employees who have to deal with the collateral damage from their manager's decision to outsource. And there's no reason at all to believe that the pain is confined to American companies that outsource. If your company outsourced IT, it's probably gonna suck, regardless of your native language.

The solution of American companies outsourcing IT overseas is not for other countries to outsource here. That's like hammering your pinky so your thumb feels better in comparison.

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825941)

Agreed. It is long past time that nations like America quit outsourcing everything, esp. when costs are higher in nations like Germany and France.
More importantly, it is time for America and other western nations to block access to their markets from nations that put up trade barriers, esp. illegal ones.
Page 10 and 11 of this [itif.org] is a good read on the issues.
The biggest one for America is that China requires that all computers and support be located within their border. As such, it is illegal per the agreement with USA and WTO.

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822567)

Number 3 is a questionable prediction.

Why do you think low prices are temporary?
Why do you thing the global economy is capable of balancing?

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823129)

Because economies balance. Low prices cause increased demand and result in higher prices. Exporting (including exporting services like "cloud stuff") cause an increased demand for the local currency which causes it be worth more and hence prices to rise for those buying your stuff.

Yes a government can spend huge amounts of money counteracting this - but usually both halves have to play. And at some point the money runs out.

See China and the US for the rather large current example. If the US government stopped selling treasuries to China the game would halt as inflation kicked up to obscene levels in China due to less ability to recycle the incoming dollars in ways that don't cause too much local price inflation.

Of course in the long run we are all dead.

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (0)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822903)

6. Tech support consists of literally praying for a fix.

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823439)

You forgot to mention that the US company is actually outsourcing the whole thing to India anyways...

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40824839)

If it were any other country, this post would have been down-modded for xenophobia, or for expressing a generally unopen/unliberal attitude.

los americanos (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825261)

1. You won't be able to understand them when you call for support.

Those Americans, cant even speak proper Spanish.

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826101)

0. They will outsource IT jobs to third world countries anyway

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826251)

When Americans apply free market capitalism to the world, they are exporting progress,

when the world applies free market capitalism to America, it is the curse of outsourcing.

American hypocrisy as clear as daylight.

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826539)

And one more reason:
0. You are not allowed to go there and talk to the hosting company.

           

Re:Top 5 Reasons Not to Outsource to US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40827145)

I'm glad someone like you knows how to run other peoples' businesses.

Outsourcing (1)

m1ndcrash (2158084) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822395)

and they outsource it to India!

Same staff (1, Informative)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822443)

With the U.S.'s non-enforcement of immigration law, the Texas datacenter could be staffed with Mexican citizens anyway.

Re:Same staff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822481)

Look if we start enforcing those laws, then our valuable corporate citizens won't be able to abuse and mistreat their workers.

That'll mean we'll have to pay them a fair salary and not have them work unpaid overtime.

Re:Same staff (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40823039)

Would you say the same thing if it was a Canadian company in North Dakota?

Let's be honest. You wouldn't and the thought wouldn't have even crossed your mind.

Texas has always had a large Spanish speaking Latino population. Yes, I know it is probably hard for ignorant people to understand but not all those fighting to save the Alamo were English speaking Anglos.

It is very easy to see how businesses in places that are supportive of bilingual individuals would be attractive to foreign businesses. Texas is among those places and therefore very likely to attract businesses from places like Mexico, etc.

Now lets make things simple for you to understand. Just because it involves Mexico and people in places with large amounts of Spanish speaking individuals does not mean that everyone involved is undocumented. There are millions of non-immigrant Latinos who live in the US. Some have lived in the US far longer than you or any of your ancestors, and still retain their cultural practices. The US was always inhabited by people of different cultures who have spoken different languages. Whether those languages were English, German, Polish, Spanish, etc. etc., one of the things that was supposed to make the US great was its openness and freedom for people to be themselves without persecution.

I know many of those great US stories are just a myth. The reality is that its just as racist, bigoted, and oppressive as any other nation. But that doesn't mean that we can't push that ideal, live our lives in that dream and maybe one day make it our reality.

I know this is going to inspire a bunch of haters to write more ignorant nonsense, instead of the thoughts and ideas I was hoping to provoke. All I can say, is good luck to you, at least in my fantasy world, people are pushing towards freedom instead of oppression.

Peace.

Re:Same staff (3, Insightful)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 2 years ago | (#40824753)

The US was always inhabited by people of different cultures who have spoken different languages.

One of the greatest parts of America has always been the concept of The Melting Pot. Now liberals are trying to do away with it in the name of Cultural Diversity with the unintended consequence of the loss of the hybrid vigor it produced.

Dilbert (4, Interesting)

KDN (3283) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822475)

Years ago Dilbert had a strip where they outsourced to country A, who outsourced to company B, and so forth until it was eventually outsourced back to themselves. Its finally happened :-)

Calling support... (4, Funny)

drkim (1559875) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822501)

Of course this get better when they call the support number and hear:

"Hello... I.T. support center. This is Joe-Bob, uh, I mean, uh, Pedro. How can I help ya'all?"

Re:Calling support... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822599)

Of course this get better when they call the support number and hear:

"Hello... I.T. support center. This is Joe-Bob, uh, I mean, uh, Pedro. How can I help ya'all?"

It's not the country. A "peggy" is a "peggy" if it's in Poland, India, Mexico or Ackerly. Outsourcing sucks not because it's foreign, but because the business model necessitates having unskilled labor manning the phones. This can happen anywhere.

Hi this is peggy hill Hola! alamo beer (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822905)

Hi this is peggy hill Hola! alamo beer

Re:Calling support... (1)

pla (258480) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823091)

It's not the country. A "peggy" is a "peggy" if it's in Poland, India, Mexico or Ackerly.

I think you missed the joke...

A recent trend in phone support has someone CLEARLY in Mumbai, with the standard unintelligible accent, answering the phone with "Hi, this is Steve, how may I help you today?", when I would bet you my left nut against a shiny new nickel that that fellow has never even met anyone legitimately named "Steve".

And I don't know which part to consider more insulting, that they think we might actually fall for it; or that they think that, by some hitherto unknown form of magic, we'll feel better about not understanding a damned word spoken by someone with an "American" name than we would from someone using their real name.

Re:Calling support... (3, Informative)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823243)

It's not the country. A "peggy" is a "peggy" if it's in Poland, India, Mexico or Ackerly.

I think you missed the joke...

I'm living the joke. Yes, I'm well aware that the current trend is for foreigns to use names appropriate for the country they're supporting. Some don't, and conversations go more like:

"Hello this is Anantharaman, how may I be helping you today?"

"Well, Aratha..."

"Anantharaman."

"Umm, Anaratharam..."

"Anantharaman"

"I'm just gonna call you 'Fred', ok?"

The hardest part of a service call should not be communicating with the helpdesk.

Re:Calling support... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825863)

So pick names Americans can deal with, but are still plausible, like Pradeep and Sanjay.

Re:Calling support... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825981)

Compare to Japan where, when requesting customer support from. say Microsoft, it's perfectly rational and in fact customary to refer to employees as "Microsoft-san" and the customer is always "Okyaku-sama", sorta like "Honorable Client".

If the representative is called Anantharaman or John, he is going to be "mister" for me (or miss or ma'am). No need to fake a name that is not necessary to begin with.

Re:Calling support... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826437)

So, because you've led a sheltered life and haven't learned to deal with people with different mother tongues, people with "different" or "complicated" names have to pretend to have a different name just for a job? Once the initial introductions are over, it's not a problem.

Maybe we (the westerners calling the support lines) should just grow up a bit and accept that people around the word have a wide array of names. My own name is very difficult for people of certain mother languages to figure out how to pronounce, and I appreciate it when they have a reasonable go - I would however be offended if they just gave up and called me "Jose" or "Sanjay", or indeed "Fred".

They're taking our jerbs! (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822565)

So eventually will emigrants from the USA also be taking over the landscaping jobs?

Re:They're taking our jerbs! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40823499)

That will be handled by repatriados [theonion.com] .

Indian Call Center company bought a U.S. one (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822643)

This is not the first sign of this. A few years back a large Indian Call Center company bought a U.S. Call Center company because they could not meet the demand for call center workers in India.

Global Outsourcing Example (2)

dorpus (636554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40822709)

I am signed up for a Japanese company that outsources weird international requests to translators all over the world. Whoever is qualified, no matter where they are in the world, will do it. I've translated documents for topics ranging from industrial refrigerants on shipping vessels to the future of feminine hygiene products in India.

(Globally, feminine hygiene product makers are excited about the huge emerging market of India. But for now, most Indian women have never heard of a tampon and think that they have a horrible cancer that causes them to bleed every few weeks. Married couples may have no idea how to make a baby, and consult witch doctors.)

Re:Global Outsourcing Example (1)

andyteleco (1090569) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826353)

Gengo?

I have done a few jobs for them too; some of the topics are really quite interesting (contents of self-help websites, quite a few pages from ehow.com, caribbean resort guides, etc).

Re:Global Outsourcing Example (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826415)

Married couples may have no idea how to make a baby, and consult witch doctors
Yeah, witchery is the most promising profession in India, going by the population numbers.

Telecomunications monopolies and subsidies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822775)

This has more to do with the high cost, low reliability and abysmal customer support of the telecommunications monopoly(TelMex) in Mexico. In addition commercial electricity usage is subsidized in most of the USA, while in Mexico very high commercial rates are used to subsidize much lower residential electricity usage. As many others have noted there are no jobs created with this move. This actually will ends up costing USA tax payers money since they are the ones ultimately paying for the subsidies to the ISP's and Electric utilities.

Just for the record I'm and American that lives in Mexico.

To Texas? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822859)

Outsourcing to texas? That just means the illegals in TX will get more money to send back to the mexico instead of putting it into our economy. Big deal.

crime (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40822981)

A lot of Mexican businesses are moving to the U.S., especially here in Houston, because of the rising crime rate in Mexico.

Re:crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825685)

Shit man. You know shit is bad when you prefer Houston to...,whatever!

in-sourcing (1)

Mc_Anthony (181237) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823049)

I remember reading in Thomas Friedman's "The World is Flat" that the US always in-sourced more jobs than we ever out-sourced. And that all of the negative media against out-sourced jobs was misguided and uninformed. Maybe this is the case after all?

Trickle vs a tsunami (1)

walterbyrd (182728) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823409)

IT jobs are *flooding* out of the US. Every now and then a few pitiful jobs come to the US. And some bozo makes a huge fuss over it.

Congresscritter lies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40823505)

stro said most countries have an equivalent Patriot Act law, and some, including Canada and Australia, allow businesses to turn over data voluntarily to a government agency. A U.S. company would viola.,,,,,

Lies... Canadian companies often don't have these protections spelled out in contracts because they're already in federal law (PIPEDA), where there are MUCH tougher penalties then a contract dispute with hard to quantify damages would have. With US companies the only protection is what's in the contract.

Also of note, in Canada, the information protection applies to all "Identifiable person"s, in the US it applies to US citizens only, or to a party to the contract.

Grupo Posadas owner hates Mexico (1)

mapuche (41699) | more than 2 years ago | (#40823781)

First, He led Mexicana (one of the national airlines) to bankrupcy:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/04/business/la-fi-mexicana-bankruptcy-20100804

Then he suggested that the word "Mexico" to be dropped as a brand for tourism. And finally, Grupo Posas is in serious financial problems.

I say don't take anything from this guy as an example of good business practice.

Non Sequitur (1)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | more than 2 years ago | (#40824233)

First, He led Mexicana (one of the national airlines) to bankrupcy:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/04/business/la-fi-mexicana-bankruptcy-20100804

Then he suggested that the word "Mexico" to be dropped as a brand for tourism. And finally, Grupo Posas is in serious financial problems.

I say don't take anything from this guy as an example of good business practice.

Be that as it may

1. There is no claim that says what Grupo Posadas is doing in this particular case (or in any case in general) is a good business practice.

2. The discussion is about a foreign firm moving most of its IT operations to a US-based cloud provider, and the implications therein on US services and/or data privacy.

I know this is /. (where argument consistency/coherence means squat) but c'mon.

More on topic, when companies "move" their "IT operations" to US-based cloud providers, it simply means they are giving up hosting their own infrastructure. Their local IT staff *might* get downsized, maybe not. But nothing of this implies that jobs are coming back (or moving) to US soil. Sysadmins will remain in Mexican. Local business ops will remain in Mexican soil. Pretty much every existing job will re-main as-is.

I mean, let's think about it. US companies nowadays move most of their infrastructure to some cloud provider hosted on, say, Heroku, Amazon or RackSpace (either just a raw virtual space or a virtual app stack.) That gets followed by massive IT Ops/sysadmins/dba admin layoffs, keeping just a core group (at most) supervising a much larger group of support staff in some other cheaper part of the globe.

Likewise a Mexican corporation would not outsource its operations to the US after moving its IT infrastructure to a US-based cloud/platform provider. It is not cost effective. Furthermore, it would not outsource it, say, to India or the Philippines because of language barriers. Outsourcing services around the globe use English as the business language. In Latin America, unlike in Europe or most of Asia, businesses are solely conducted in Spanish or Portuguese - we are horrendously monolingual, more so than Americans. American companies (and European/Japanese companies to a lesser degree) can freely move their operations around the world because English proficiency of some sort is used as a business language.

Not so with Mexican companies (or Latin American companies in general). So any reporter who thinks this could mean a back-to-the-land job migration of sorts is seriously mistaken, uninformed and ignorant.

Re:Non Sequitur (1)

mapuche (41699) | more than 2 years ago | (#40824549)

"Could cloud service providers help the U.S. become a destination for tech outsourcing instead of an exporter of tech jobs?"

My comment is aiming this part. Grupo Posadas hasn't show they can make good business decisions lately, and their move shouldn't mark as a trend for foreign companies moving operation to the US.

"Furthermore, it would not outsource it, say, to India or the Philippines because of language barriers."

I aknowledge only 10% of the Mexico population speaks English, but it's exactly that percentile (IT, management, etc) who is in charge to make decisions to move services abroad. Basicaly I higly doubt a second language is a barrier.

Re:Grupo Posadas owner hates Mexico (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 2 years ago | (#40824601)

I don't think Gaston Azcarraga hates Mexico any more than Mitt Romney hates the USA.

They just make decisions based strictly on their own bottom line, and the shareholders, the workers, and the customers can all go screw themselves.

Ikea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40824101)

I believe that Ikea outsources manufacturing to the US because of the low wages and benefits. Interesting that the US is a third world country in such ways.

Re:Ikea (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 2 years ago | (#40824631)

I'm pretty sure it's partly due to the amount of their crap that gets sold here.

Wouldn't be possible from Europe (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826361)

As it has been proven that Safe Harbour really isn't, any EU organisation that uses a US data provider is potentially on their way to a violation of Data Protection.

Not that that matters much, the Irish Data Protection people have already shown comprehensively [europe-v-facebook.org] that that isn't a real problem :)

If you want to keep things private, don't post (1)

DerUberTroll (2676259) | more than 2 years ago | (#40827057)

Plain and simple. That cloud business is making me sick. A server is cheap. Store and encrypt your shit and don't use the Internet for storage. It was not designed for that purpose.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?