Swedish Teleco Firms Looking Into Block VoIP Claiming Losses In Earnings 151
An anonymous reader writes "Telia, a Swedish telecommunications company, is now looking into possible solutions to block free VoIP services like Skype and Vibr, claiming the losses are beginning to take its toll on the total earnings. Critics are saying the companies have wrongly implemented outdated pricing models, and the act could threaten net transparency and Independence. A new report from regulators of the European phone market shows that more and more telecommunications companies will block their subscribers from using free services. The European Commission is investigating whether it is possible to prohibit the blocking of legal services online."
What the heck? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that when companies managed to reach a nice cushioned position they complain when the rules of the game change? this does not make sense to me.
You had all this time to profit and INNOVATE. Why not start your own VOIP service? instead, like some retarded dictator you want to block progress.
Innovate or die.
Re:What the heck? (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand it's understandable that after giving their users nearly unlimited mobile net they feel tricked when noone is paying them for phone calls anymore. On the other hand if it's cheaper to make phone calls over Skype than it is in the traditional way that means that phone calls are hugely overpriced because Skype has strong security and much better sound quality than a phone call. In any case, they should have seen this coming and plan forward, transforming from telcos to mobile net companies.
Re:What the heck? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the heck? (Score:5, Informative)
It may not be 100% secure but it's enough that even the NSA hasn't got the power to do mass snooping. They'll have to pick and choose who they can afford to dedicate computing time to. ...and it's unlikely that it will be DES these days. AES is no harder for a programmer to implement.
Re:What the heck? (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest rumor about Skype is that there's an NSA/insert-government-here backdoor that lets them listen in on your Skype calls.
That already exists in every modern phone and has for decades now, so you're not really losing anything in that respect. You are, however, gaining much better call quality for a fraction of the price.
Re: (Score:2)
AIUI If they can get control of the login server (including it's private key) and they can conveince your client to connect to thier host cache rather than the main host cache they can MITM your calls.
Re: (Score:2)
AIUI If they can get control of the login server (including it's private key) and they can conveince your client to connect to thier host cache rather than the main host cache they can MITM your calls.
Maybe... but they can already do that with regular ol' phones now can't they?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they can.
If you really need to protect your conversations from tapping (whether by the government or by sufficiently motivated criminals) you shouldn't be using either skype or the regular phone network. You should be using an encyrpted system where you manage the keys yourself and where the datastream is constant bitrate (to prevent attacks based on packet size analysis)
Re: (Score:2)
Skype being closed source this is always a possibility, but even if true at least only the government can eavesdrop and not every criminal/Rupert Murdoch.
Re: (Score:2)
Skype being closed source this is always a possibility, but even if true at least only the government can eavesdrop and not every criminal/Rupert Murdoch.
>Implying that governments are not criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh boy, couldn't back that up with your name, eh? Had to go Anonymous? Typical.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why do you assume he even has an account? Personally I find it better to let each post stand on it's own merit rather than let it be judged on the basis of my previous statements and opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
There's practically no merit to a post consisting of nothing but the cliché "[citation needed]" response either way.
Telia-Sonera exec wants to do the same thing (Score:3)
he gave comments (i think during mwc) that they'll want a cut of skype/voip done on their networks. how they planned to do it he didn't mention, maybe he believes in some uber packet inspection. if they'll start doing that they'll be thoroughly fucked as their customers can just pick up and leave - which is why they're desperately trying to tie them in with device partial payment plans & other shit they've copied from at&t, for some reason they think that's the company to copy. you would think they'
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly I find it amusing. My carrier (Rogers of Canada) is known for bad service. 3 years ago when I started with them they would proxy all voip communications from my smartphone (I don't know if they billed or just proxied for other reasons). 3 Weeks ago they rolled out a free VOIP service that requires using a computer (some proprietary front end) free to use for their customers (including free long distance and free texting from the computer to any line in Canada).
As it turns out I no-longer think of
Re: (Score:2)
Their business model is based on vastly overcharging for POTS. The amounts they're charging per minute of phone call exceeds the actual cost of supply the line and bandwidth by several orders of magnitude. Customers willingly paid it because they had no choice, and they only made phone calls for a few minutes at a time.
OTOH,
Re:What the heck? (Score:5, Informative)
It's like this:
In Europe most of us have flat-rate data for like, $10 a month. Some companies drop the speed after X megabytes but essentially there's no limits.
Using VOIP we can talk 24/7 for the entire month for only $10. This makes it very popular, especially among foreigners who call home a lot.
It's also very understandable that it makes the phone companies unhappy. They just gave you an Android smartphone for signing up, you're using their networks to make calls and they're only making $120 per year out of it.
Re:What the heck? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What happened with the KPN incident last year? Was the legislation only for fixed-line internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What the heck? (Score:5, Informative)
Skype claims that a skype-to-skype call is at 3MB/min, while a skype-to-landline/mobile is at 1MB/min. Considering that most of the calls that are make are to people that don't have skype, I'll use the latter figure.
I sometimes use up to 400 minutes, or less (no carry-over, which is illegal, but we are too scared to fight this). So 350 minutes equates to 350MB skype-to-skype calls. Let's call it 400MB including presence, contact information. I use around 350MB/month when away from my wifi networks. The most applicable data bundle is 1GB, at ZAR290. An "unlimited" package goes for 10x this amount. So, I'll be paying around ZAR320/month for the contract, including their lovely add-ons they always manage to squeeze in.
Next is the cost of skype. If i choose the pay-per-minute option, I'll be paying ZAR0.177/minute, or roughly ZAR61.95/month. This brings my total monthly bill to ZAR381.95, rounding up for the unexpected - ZAR400/month.
I pay ZAR350 for 350 minutes per month, plus a few other items (promotion fee (WTF is that???), itemized statement). The cost of the phone is included in all of that. Assuming I don't go over any of my bundles (350 minutes, 100 sms, 350 GB), then I pay ZAR637/month. And yes, I do often go over my bundles.
So, a data-only contract (it's not data only, but rather the only bundle is data. Voice calls are paid at full rates - ZAR2.85) is 75% of a voice contract. Plus, i pay the same for local calls as I do for international calls when done through skype. ZAR400 vs ZAR637 is a massive difference, making it well-worth it. If I choose the skype route, I end up paying my mobile operator ~ZAR340/month instead of ~ZAR640/month. They will lose out ZAR300/month - or ZAR7,000 over a 24 month contract period.
If I was a mobile operator, I would hate to lose half of my income from a number of my users. But, that's what they get for bending us over the coals, pulling down our pants, and...well...this is a family show. I've used the most expensive skype option, so the prices for monthly or annual subscriptions would only drop.
The only issue is that of battery consumption of skype, and coverage. I spend 99.9% of my time in urban areas with semi-decent data coverage. For the times when I'm in rural/low coverage areas, then I would pay out my of ass to do voice calls. But I'm not too worried about that.
So my point is, yes mobile operators are losing money to VOIP. Yes, they can do something about that. But, they have been dropping their prices in recent years due to consumer demand and dissatisfaction, so they are losing "potential" revenue regardless. I say stick it to "the man" until we collapse the economy with all these work-arounds.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also very understandable that it makes the phone companies unhappy. They just gave you an Android smartphone for signing up, you're using their networks to make calls and they're only making $120 per year out of it.
Maybe they should have chosen a business model that makes sense, then?
It's like if I offered to sell you a bicycle for $50,00 or sell you a car for $10,00, and then when everyone opted to buy the car, I start setting up barricades on the roads so that people can't drive their cars because
Re: (Score:3)
Quality of Service (Score:2)
While it's true that the voice packets and data packets may be travelling over the same network, in a traditional telco situation they have very carefully designed that network to guarantee certain quality-of-service parameters for the voice packets.
There are very strict requirements for latency and drop rate when dealing with voice packets. Those requirements are *not* there when using skype or similar.
Re: (Score:2)
...in a traditional telco situation they have very carefully designed that network to guarantee certain quality-of-service parameters for the voice packets.
There are very strict requirements for latency and drop rate when dealing with voice packets. Those requirements are *not* there when using skype or similar.
Which in practical terms amounts to this: I might actually have to say, "Excuse me, could you repeat that?" due to a dropout maybe once or twice during a 30-minute Skype call from Sweden to someplace on another continent. (I make regular calls to the US, China, and Australia.)
In addition, you seem to forget that voice communication between humans is highly fault-tolerant. We do not hear every word that is uttered, nor do we need to (recent example where someone didn't say the whole word, but people still he [youtube.com]
We fixed this in NL (Score:5, Informative)
In the Netherlands, the largest telco (KPN) was also going to do this... then parliament rushed through a net neutrality law that forbids deep packet inspection and blocking specific traffic and the telcos backed off quickly. Now they can only charge by amount of data and speed. Maybe the Swedish will get lucky too now.
Not yet... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not yet... (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless of the law being accepted or not, the combination of the resistance amongst the public and the politicians agains the telco plans and the proposal of this law had a significant effect: the telco's withdrew their plans. And they are slowly switching to a different pricing model, where data is the main component. And in one case, already the new phone subsidy has changed into a phone lease, for which you pay separately if you want it.
This does mean that the price of data becomes a significant amount of the price of your monthly phone bill. It doesn't magically mean that data is now free and unlimited, and not even that things like price differences within and outside of your data limit will disappear. You will not suddenly pay less in all cases, telephone companies still need to make money. But it does force them into a more fair pricing plan.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I ended up paying more due to my data usage, possibly as a result of the net neutrality law, but.. I wouldn't want it any other way. I'd rather pay more (or use a bit less) in the short term and ensure that we have net neutrality, rather than keeping my 'unlimited' data subscription but ending up paying extra for certain services in the long term.
I was very happy to see people & politics care about the net neutrality issue, I hope the senate won't screw up it
Will they ever learn? (Score:4, Insightful)
We know how that worked out.
Maybe the telecom people should start reading the news?
Re: (Score:2)
We know how that worked out.
They're going to start suing their customers and put a bad taste in everyone's mouth (except for the lawyers), all while making a massive pile of money (although not as much as they used to)?
Re: (Score:2)
all while making a massive pile of money (although not as much as they used to)?
Maybe not the music industry, but "Hollywood" (MPAA members) had record profits year after year from 2006 to 2010, at least. So they're making more money than they used to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And so goes the takeover of human communication (Score:4, Interesting)
These telecommunications companies are little more than parasites. They don't ENABLE anything on their own. First, they leverage all kinds of free subsidies (your tax dollars) to build their networks. Then, they wrangle out of taxes by taking business deductions, usually paying their worthless CEO's and other senior executives obscene amount of money for doing exactly what? Taking credit for the INternet and its associated benefits to technology, even as they choke off the benefits of those technologies.
What's even more breathtaking is that its tax money (made from our tax dollars, earned by the sweat of our ever-longer work days) that actually *paid* for their infrastructure.
Last, the thing that really amps me up about stuff like this is that telecommunications companies and ISPs, etc. are essentially using technology that they didn't invent, to leverage YOUR and my communicative assets!
Communication was "free" until we began to find ways to increase it's speed, depth, and breadth. From the stone tablet, to the scribes, to the early offset printers (and print distributors), to the Internet and its multifarious ways of data and information transmission, certain folks have found a way to horde either the means to information production, or its transmission.
Guess what? That model isn't going to work anymore, not if we want a sustainable information ecology that is as diverse as possible.
Sorry, but these ISPs and telcos are little more than traitors to human advancement, masquerading as enablers. They want to suck us dry; they want all the benefits. They want tax breaks made by the policy makers that they buy every few years to build their infrastructures, and then they want us to pay them more, as if the tax breaks (which we ultimately pay for) and the infrastructure (which we also pay for), and the very source of communications that they leverage (you and me), isn't enough.
We need to start finding ways (I don't have the answers, just posing the possibility) to once and for all RID this world of these gatekeepers, because they are interested in keeping only one thing sustainable - their bank accounts. They could give a damn about whether the world is better serves by more transparent and facile communications technology. The Telco and ISP sector are, again, traitors to human growth and development. We need to find another way.
Re: (Score:2)
From the stone tablet, to the scribes, to the early offset printers (and print distributors), to the Internet and its multifarious ways of data and information transmission, certain folks have found a way to horde either the means to information production, or its transmission.
You sound like one of them there Commies, to me, pal... :D
You've got it wrong - not US infrastructure (Score:2)
Australia has a similar problem with Telstra doing as little as possible since 1996 and charging whatever they can get away with. It's not quite as bad because there is a little bit of privately built infrastructure but I can see where the above poster is coming from, especially since I need to pay more than
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to have missed the emoticon at the end. Please check your humour indicator and recalibrate as needed. (And see my posting history for guidance, you'll find easily that I'm no corporate apologist.)
As it happens, I lived for some years in Brisbane, and I'm well acquainted with Telstra's *and* Optus' shenanigans. (I've been a customer of both, and they both suck.) As well as those of the telcos in the US, where I am from originally.
(ExecSummary: "Looks like you've been whoooshed, mate.")
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed. I have watched this happen over and over and over and somehow the majority of people seem to not notice and STILL think that companies have the interests of common people at heart... No. They just want your money and will take it for doing as little as possible for as long as possible (its called maximizing profits). Its amazing, both otherwise intelligent and not so intelligent people are the same way on this topic. I think its because people want to believe that everyone else would see things h
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I do have the answer, and it's surprisingly simple:
Provide fiber to the home as a municipal service for just the physical layer (eg, you lease two strands from the city for $10/month); have the other end in a data center where you can be cross connected to your choice of data service providers. In other words, take the physical layer away from the telcos so they can't leverage that monopoly against you; then they have to actually compete.
Wherever this is done the diversity of services flourishes and the pr
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is that it's only TeliaSonera contemplating on doing this, all the others are more than fine with the situation as it is, and are even actively promoting unrestricted mobile broadbands.
In Finland, perhaps, but in Sweden basically all the operators have been considering blocking VoIP for quite a long time [mobil.se] (article in Swedish, apologies).
Re: (Score:2)
Hm. I thought read in yesterday's Metro a statement from a Telenor exec to the effect that they aren't planning to institute any sort of usage filtering in the foreseeable future...?
Re: (Score:2)
in the foreseeable future...?
That's a key bit here.. see you have a large industry that all want to do it but none want the bad PR they know will come with it.. once One of them does it and survives the PR backlash then the others can make a better judgement call on it and will be follow suit. To them it's nothing but risk assessment, all this comment proves is that the Telenor exec in question isn't willing to put his neck on the line for the current unknown risk, once the risk is know he will to the full extent that it will make h
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't use *my* translation/wording in place of an actual direct quote from the Telenor guy.
I don't have a copy of the paper in front of me, and my Swedish is far from perfect.
This is why I made my post in the form of a question, and included the phrase "to the effect that...". I wasn't being rhetorical, I was asking for confirmation from someone else who actually read the article in (I think it was) Thursday's Metro.
(P.S. Nice sig.)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand, and thanks i love my sig.. it applies to a lot of people/things, my self included more than i'd like.
Re: (Score:2)
Some years ago TeliaSonera was also the only ISP in Finland to talk about adding transfer limits to their non-mobile broadband service. They quickly stopped talking about that because they lost customers and the other service providers weren't going to jump aboard. So in a sense they're a front runner in Finl
Monthly Subscription Fees... (Score:1)
If you are a subscriber and you pay a monthly fee to a communication company for Internet access and telecommunication services (phone, short messages) then the subscriber should be the one to decide what he wants to do on the internet, even if it's VoIP communication. He/She pays for that specific service, the usage of the Internet and those companies should deliever what they offer.
What's next? Are they going to block instant messenger apps because people use their Short Message Services less?
Re: (Score:2)
If you are a subscriber and you pay a monthly fee to a communication company for Internet access and telecommunication services (phone, short messages) then the subscriber should be the one to decide what he wants to do on the internet, even if it's VoIP communication. He/She pays for that specific service, the usage of the Internet and those companies should deliever what they offer.
What's next? Are they going to block instant messenger apps because people use their Short Message Services less?
funny that you mention that. there's several operators that had/have plans where you paid a free for using their msn solution.
while you could just pay for data.
Re: (Score:2)
funny that you mention that. there's several operators that had/have plans where you paid a free for using their msn solution.
I am ashamed to admit that I got suckered by this myself not long after I moved here, not knowing any Swedish at the time and not realising that their "MSN Messenger" was basically a trojan wrapped around the real thing--this trojan having permissions to add a separate usage charge to my bill whenever I fired up the app. Took me 3 friggin' months to get the "automatic subscription" removed, even after I uninstalled it from my phone.
This was Tele2 IIRC--I've since switched providers.
Slashdot editors looking into learn English (Score:1, Insightful)
Why not block email then..? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The same sh..t here (Score:1)
I guess telecom guys are the same around the world. The same situation is here in Ukraine. VoIP with SIP is just tabooed by law. Government officials publicly speak about taxing Skype and ICQ.
Re: (Score:2)
Similar situation here in Germany too, albeit not quite as bad. Most providers (such as Vodafone or o2) don't allow tethering, VoIP and sometimes even IM on their lower end plans. Get a plan that's meant for tethering or use in a laptop and you're golden... that doesn't make the restrictions in lower plans OK, but at least we have a viable alternative.
I do, however, see where the phone companies are coming from - I don't think I've made more than 3 minutes worth of actual cell phone calls in the past month.
Why prohibit? (Score:3)
Why don't we just choose the provider that gives us the best offer - for example the one that let's us use audio-over-the-internet, maybe at a higher prize?
Let providers be free to make whatever offers they want and let others be free to accept or decline.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they collude and no telco will offer the service that people want at a reasonable price, that's why. Also, telcos and ISPs shouldn't be allowed to interfere with traffic in any way shape or form beyond what's necessary to make sure it's delivered to its proper destination.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they collude and no telco will offer the service that people want at a reasonable price, that's why.
I'm gonna be a bit contrarian here, in part because it's an interesting issue to explore. Allow them to collude, I say! If you and I decide to start offering a service and also decide to be all colluding about it, what right does others have to prevent us? If they don't accept our offer, they can just say "no" and go on without it.
No one has any obligation to offer you any service at a price you find reasonable. No one has any obligation to offer you any service at all, even. If you don't find the price rea
Re: (Score:1)
Except it would mess with how the internet is supposed to work. And this could lead to some serious drawbacks if Universities/Research Labs have to start paying MORE for Internet access. This could potentially lead on an increase on price on a lot of things. Internet access is a cost. If you let them go free on whatever they want, that cost may(will) go up.
And that is just one side of the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it would mess with how the internet is supposed to work. And this could lead to some serious drawbacks if Universities/Research Labs have to start paying MORE for Internet access. This could potentially lead on an increase on price on a lot of things. Internet access is a cost. If you let them go free on whatever they want, that cost may(will) go up.
Mess up how the Internet is supposed to work? I'm not sure I follow you. Why would there be drawbacks if specifically universities and labs paid more as opposed to if everyone else paid more? What if prices do go up? Lot's of things cost me more than I would like them to. Can you make all prices go down, please? Except when I sell something. I'm afraid I'm not convinced by your argument.
And that is just one side of the issue.
Oh! Well, if that's the case, I'm convinced!
Re: (Score:1)
Cool. And when I find you lying in the street having a heart-attack or stroke, I'll just stand there and stare at you because I have no phone on account of there being no contract that was actually usable.
Communication is too important to be left to the "invisible hand". You sound like someone who just had their first economy class and is high on free market ideals.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool. And when I find you lying in the street having a heart-attack or stroke, I'll just stand there and stare at you because I have no phone on account of there being no contract that was actually usable.
Communication is too important to be left to the "invisible hand".
Let's just peacefully explore the issue. I'm still trying to find my own stance here, entertaining opinions without necessarily embracing them, putting forward an argument to see what will be said against it.
Firstly, I don't think it would ever go that far. If no one is using a phone at all, then certainly there is money to be made from providing a service that is at least usable. At least as much I'd say we can expect from the invisible hand. Secondly, some would argue that regardless of whether I die or n
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if you want to offer a better service, you just need to talk your government into granting you some channels at the eletromagnetic spectrum. Oh, wait, all of them are already granted? I guess you can't offer that better service.
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm gonna be a bit contrarian here, in part because it's an interesting issue to explore. Allow them to collude, I say!"
The problem is that historically there are relatively few players in the telecoms market, because it is a natural monopoly. The barriers to entry are very high, so there isn't a lot of competition.
Around here (Canadian Prairies) there are two cell networks, one run by the phone company and one by the cable company. There are then 6 other companies that lease bandwidth on their towers.
Re: (Score:2)
Because they collude and no telco will offer the service that people want at a reasonable price, that's why. Also, telcos and ISPs shouldn't be allowed to interfere with traffic in any way shape or form beyond what's necessary to make sure it's delivered to its proper destination.
I don't think that network neutrality makes sense when the flow of packets is pretty much unidirectional. Treating every packet identically as it moves through the internet means that this one-way flow cannot be optimized. For a car analogy, network neutrality is like having unsynchronized traffic lights. I live in a town where most people commute from east to west in the mornings, and west to east in the evenings. The traffic lights on the east-west corridors in my town are synchronized to optimize t
Re:Why prohibit? (Score:4, Insightful)
You seems to think that the telecommunication industry is a free market. It is not. It provides vital infrastructure which means that it's, and should be, heavily subsidized and regulated.
Re: (Score:2)
should: There's not an unlimited range of usable frequencies.
is: The infrastructure is mostly funded by tax money.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the problem is that Microsoft owns Skype and they also have their own mobile OS, which is heavily promoted by a handset manufacturer: Nokia. If they integrate Skype to the OS they can create their own network independent from the mobile carriers. For example one would not need to have separate phone plan at all at home with a wifi enabled router. Losing text messaging and voice calls is not what the carriers want. Sure one can have a similar setup now, but in this case it's carriers/ISPs vs. mobile
Re: (Score:2)
Because due to the finite bandwidth of the spectrum, there is a fixed number of mobile telecom companies, that are choosen by the government. If all of them choose to not let you use their infrastructure the way you want, you can't choose another one.
If I was Swedish.. (Score:1)
I would drop Telia and go to another provider. Nothing beats shit like this than burying them by not giving them your money.
Re: (Score:1)
Can they do it? (Score:1)
Will the operators find a solution, or can the creators of VoIP apps easily find ways around the operators efforts to block them? How would the operators block an encrypted voice call on a random port?
I don't like this one bit. (Score:1)
The reasonable thing to do in a situation such as this would be boycotting Telia for not respecting their customers. Problem is, Telia is not the only operator that wants to stop Skype and equivalent services. In fact, I don't think there's a reasonable alternative at all. I don't want to share too much of my inside info even though I'm posting as Anonymous Coward, but enabling of blocking certain services is being built into charging systems that are used by huge operators all over the world. I believe thi
This happened in Belize (Score:3)
I left the country three years ago, and things have improved slightly since then, but at the time, a 128k DSL line cost a total of about $85usd a month, when all the charges were added up. This is in a country where minimum wage is around $1.50usd. There are about 350,000 people in the whole country, and if I'm not mistaken, BTL reported a net profit of $13.5mil USD last year. So I'm going to have a hard time with ISPs attempting to justify this sort of thing.
This is being done in Spain and Germany right now (Score:1)
However, luckily users still have the option of changing to other operators (mostly "virtual" providers who sublet the network infrastructure from the main players) who are more than happy to allow access to VoIP in order to get new custo
wouldn't want the marketdroids to actually WORK (Score:2)
It's sooo much easier to blame "the Internet" than figure out a pricing model that makes it sufficiently convenient to use the "telephone system" (yes, I know that the telcos frequently use the Internet themselves) to make a telephone call that enough subscribers continue to do that rather than putting the (not terribly much) extra effort to set up and use Skype, ...
game changed (Score:4, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I used to work for a telco, and was close to the C-level, so some actual business insight might be included, as long as supplies last, some assembly required.
The problem the telcos are trying to solve is twofold, especially for the old and large (often ex-government) ones.
The economic problem is that they have massive amounts of hardware, space and other investments tied up into POTS systems. Putting up the whole IP infrastructure wasn't cheap either, and now one of them is destroying the other. That's like having two cars and then your wife leaves - there's simply too much hardware in your garage you don't need. If you can't get rid of it, you will find yourself trying to use both, convincing yourself that one is better for city driving while the other is better for hauling stuff or long-distance or whatever. But the simple fact is that you simply don't like going perfectly good stuff to waste.
The other problem is pricing. Internet access was initially sold as an add-on, to gain more customers. The price point was designed for that case. Also, after privatisation, many countries in Europe entered a price-war amongst the telcos, driving prices down to a level that only few could sustain for long. Now they are at that point, usage patterns have long since changed with IP traffic being orders of magnitude higher, but they can't raise the prices because that would mean losing customers to the competition. And customers mean everything, because this is one of the businesses where the big honcho monkeys believe that only the top players can compete in the long run, so losing customers is the direct route for the CEO to lose his job. Not because of any actual facts, even if he keeps the company profitable, but because the big shareholders have all subscribed to a mantra that is accepted at face value.
All the throttling and filtering and bla that is being discussed is because during the land-grab phase of getting as many customers as possible, and Internet access being one big weapon in that, they basically allowed marketing to dig them into a very deep hole with its promises of unlimited high-speed access for almost no money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, accusing an insider of not having inside information is the way to go!
Part of the infrastrucutre was brought by the governemnt, but even that part most countries did sell, not give to the private initiative. Besides, on lots of places the infrastruture was severely underdimensionated, and needed an upgrade at the time.
Yes, all systems have a limited life span. Good telecom equipment usualy have a life span around 20 years, sometimes more. The evolution of analogic cellphones to the old digital ones (C
Re: (Score:2)
One, my boss was the CFO. I think I can claim a limited insight into the accounting details.
Two, limited life span is true. For some equipment, that life span is 30 years. And we're not talking throwaway PCs here. I've seen old switching equipment being shipped a thousand miles in order to not having to buy a new one at the other location.
Three, the cost isn't zero, ever. That's the asset value on the books, but that's not cost. There are operating costs, and they are considerable.
Four, telcos have competit
Does this really matter? (Score:1)
They'll get done for collusion. (Score:2)
One of the things I actually like about the EU is that the courts here actually bit you if you violate competition law. Instead of the slap on the wrist you often see in US rulings, when a company is convicted of unfair business practices over here their options are basically to comply, cease doing business or face a fine so harsh it will eat up their profit margin.
When it comes to cellphones I expect they telcos will be in trouble if they try to pull a quick one here. Most EU politicians have to deal with
Antitrust (Score:2)
In related news .... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
You just redefined meaning of the word 'Fun' for me!
Re:NOTHING WORSE THAN ANGRY SWEDES !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really angry, more like depressed. The winters are long, cold, and dark.
It is not helped by the fact that Swedes are notoriously uncommitted in their relationships, resulting in one of the highest, if not the highest percentage of 1-person households and single-parent families on the planet. Stockholm is littered with foreigners who married Swedes, moved here, then got dumped a few years later ("Ah well, this is our third argument this year, it's too much trouble to work out, I'm just divorcing you instead"--I shit you not, this actually happened to a friend of mine) and they wind up staying on so they can see their kids. And many of these ex-pats seem to spend most of their time, when not at work or visiting the kids, getting drunk and/or drug-fucked.
Don't get me wrong, I've lived here for nearly 5 years. As a resident and as a worker, I've been treated extremely well, and I'm very grateful for this. But I am really glad I met someone who's also not from here, instead of trying to hook up with a Swedish girl.
And it can be a beautiful country (especially in the summer, when it never really gets dark), and some Swedes are actually quite warm and friendly. But it's also true that about 20% of my neighbours in this building are single, live alone, don't go out much, and seem to have few if any visitors.
It's a bit sad. And if you are at all prone to depression, it can be a real struggle to make it through the winter here. This comes from one who knows all too well.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hi, while I'm glad you have liked your stay (so far), I'd like to point out that Stockholm (Göteborg and Malmö) have extraordinary divorce rates, all of them about 50% higher than any "normal" region, secondly swedes born in Sweden (married to another swede) are less likely to get get a divorce than other couples in other regions of the world (hard to make a fair comparison tbh since these figures are compared to very large regions such as EU27, EU except EU 27, Africa, North America etc.) - it is
Re: (Score:2)
Förlåt mig, kompis--you are quite right to distinguish between urban and other Swedes. And it also seems that (my experience only) Swede-Swede marriages, especially when one or both partners are not from the big city, do tend to last longer.
If we wind up staying on here many more years, I would really prefer to move down to Malmö or Kalmar. The folks in Skåne and Småland are much more congenial, and they have even offered to help me get rid of that horrible Stockholm accent and lear
Re: (Score:2)
If we wind up staying on here many more years, I would really prefer to move down to Malmö or Kalmar. The folks in Skåne and SmÃ¥land are much more congenial
Well if you're contemplating leaving Sweden anyway, there's no need to settle for Skåne. Just go the whole hog and move somewhere worth while, e.g. the continent proper. :-)
And if you need help with your accent then we'd be happy to help in Göteborg, but "congenial" I wouldn't go that far. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Assange, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really angry, more like depressed. The winters are long, cold, and dark
The winters in Scotland are about as long, almost as cold, about as dark and damp. (I've been in both countries in the winter. Sweden is nicer: lying snow at least makes things look brighter, I don't like the mist and mud in Scotland. I've only spent about two weeks in each (in winter), though.)
Yet, although Scotland currently has a higher suicide rate than England, this wasn't the case 50 years ago: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16950313 [bbc.co.uk]
I think the other points you make are more important than t
Re: (Score:2)
It is not helped by the fact that Swedes are notoriously uncommitted in their relationships, resulting in one of the highest, if not the highest percentage of 1-person households and single-parent families on the planet.
The rate may be high but it isn't exceptional - it's about the same in the UK, plus the UK divorce rate is higher - 19% versus Sweden's 14%.
Stockholm is littered with foreigners who married Swedes, moved here, then got dumped a few years later
Anecdotes about the difficulties of foreign immigrants aren't representative of the Swedish population as a whole, as immigrants make up only 14% of the population.
Re: (Score:2)
hmmh... you make it sound like divorce is the end of the world.
Ever been married? Divorced? Ever move to another country on account of marrying someone from there, then have them dump you a few years later, leaving you on your own in a foreign land (where they don't even speak your language) with no other reason to be there except the kids (who also don't speak your language, only their mother's)?
Doesn't sound like it.
Anyhow, I don't see where I've said or implied anything end-of-the-world-ish at all, and I view my own divorce as absolutely necessary and unavoidable. B
Re: (Score:1)
That fact was true in the 1950s, when Eisenhower quoted it in order to rubbish socialist governments. It has not been true for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
And then only because the underreporting of suicides was lower in Sweden compared to other countries, probably for cultural factors.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think /. is the place to reference a libertarian holy book.
quality of service (Score:2)
There are actually international standards about quality of service that apply to voice communications but don't apply to data communications, so it's not unreasonable for voice to cost somewhat more.
That said, it would make sense for the telco to come out with their own VoIP service that is priced similarly to Skype. They could then get some control over it while still being able to compete price-wise.
At the very least they should price their data plans such that they cover the costs. If actual voice tra