Slashdot Mirror


China Telecom Blocking Skype Calls

Retrospeak writes "According to a Reuters report China is starting to block Skype service in Shenzhen, an affluent southern city of China. Local Chinese media report that China Telecom has plans to eventually block the service throughout its coverage area nationwide. Could this have something to do with the fact that China Telecom charges close to $1 per minute for calls to United States and Europe?" From the article: " A China Telecom spokesman had no comment on the reports about the Shenzhen blockage, but gave a broader view. 'Under the current relevant laws and regulations of China, PC-to-phone services are strictly regulated and only China Telecom and (the nation's other fixed-line carrier) China Netcom are permitted to carry out some trials on a very limited basis,' he said."

10 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. This is surprising from Communist state-run media? by gearmonger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now if we could somehow get a US company to pay Chinese workers $2 per hour to make Skype handsets for sale in China, then we might have a deal on our hands. Anyone?

  2. Re:Best of luck with that by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure how you think the Chinese government will 'have to embrace' anything. If they want to block IP telephony they can and will. What does the legitimacy or functionality of the technology have to do with what a dictatorial, repressive government can and will do?

  3. Nope by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not a lawyer, and curious about the legal implications of this. I know that with China being a communist nation, that the people probably have no rights, but could Skype turn around and have a lawsuit against China Telecom, for "obstruction of service" or "tampering with service" which is essentially what they are doing?

    It's hard enough to sue a sovereign nation for violating it's *own* laws, let alone over something like this. IANAL either, but I can tell you that a snowball would have a better chance lasting in hell than Skype would have in winning such a suit.

  4. Lived in China two years, no surprise to me by jjn1056 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what happens when a fascist oligarchy adopts the worst aspects of capitalism.

    Funny, I was in Beijing two months ago and there was a HUGE billboard for Skype, right in the center of the business district.

    My guess is that they are just using a heavy hand to pressure skype into two things:

    1) handing over some money/bribes.
    2) making sure they can listen in on conversations
    3) They did something like this to Google a few years back. Even now google experiences outages all the time. I guess this is just the way the chinese gov't is used to doing business.

    Skype just has to figure out the right person to bribe and this will all go away.

    --
    Peace, or Not?
  5. Re:Sad Future of Broadband Access in other countri by Mullen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Simple test to see which country is more free.

    Can you join a Nazi party in your Country? Many European Countries you can not, in the US, you can.
    Can you buy a copy Mein Kamf? Many Countries you can not, in the US, you can.
    Can you buy anything that is printed? In the United Stated, bomb making books are printed and sold, legally.
    Are your basic rights outlined in your constition? Freedom of Speech, Right to Assemble, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religion are the basic foundations of this Country are protect by our Bill of Rights.

    Europe and other countries can bash us for many reasons and in some areas are more free than we are, but in the Big Picture, we are more free than anyone else.

    --
    Linux O Muerte!
  6. What a joke by piecewise · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's unfortunate you seem to hold most dearly those values related to the Nazi revolution. Unfortunately, I don't like settling for that kind of freedom.

    If I'm blocked from attending a town hall meeting put on by my President because I'm a Democrat, I'm not very free.

    If elections can be decided by a court, I'm not very free.

    If neoconservatives can threaten to impeach judges because they don't decide cases based on religious contrine, I'm not very free.

    If big businesses can invest their money wisely enough to buy off a Congress, I'm not very free. (See the energy, telecommunications, defense, highway bills.)

    If oil companies formerly run by our Vice President get no-bid contracts and take over Iraqi oil fields, I'm not very free.

    If the government office in charge of investigating abuses of power (like those no-bid contracts) say they're "too busy" to investigate Cheney, despite having three times the case load when they approved a Clinton investigation, I'm not very free.

    If my uncle down south, along with others, is asked to leave his church because he's a card-carrying Democrat, I'm not very free.

    If wealthy people get billions of dollars and, as a result, we cripple state budgets and tens of thousands of people die because of a Hurricane, I'm not very free.

    The truth is, honest to God, I'd trade in my copy of "My Struggle" if it reversed all those things. Freedom is in the eye of the beholder. The rich and the religious feel very free. In fact, they feel ENTITLED. But the truth is, there's a reason Norway is #1 on the UN's list of countries to live in and the U.S. is #37. I can't imagine Norwegians are screaming for liberty and freedoms. They're free, they go about their lives, and they do well.

    The U.S. has turned a corner and is on a very dark path right now. If you don't see it - even just a glimpse of it - then you need to, because power tends to consolidate, and if past actions lend to future ambitions, we're in for big trouble as neocons continue gaining strength.

    Your simple test is misguided. It's not about which party you can join. After all - Germany had a problem with Nazis and outlawed them. We spent a better part of the 20th century tearing to pieces Communists in our own. Even today, in the 21st century, many folks spend their time talking about "killing" (yes, hate speech) the liberals who ruin this country. They are perverse, sick, disgusting individuals who are so entrenched in a false system of values.

    The true test of freedom is the consolidation of power. Is it centralized in the people in America? I would say less and less. Corporatism is the new threat - and the neocons (and even many Conservatives) are perfectly aligned to feed it. This threatens our values. These are not our American values -- hell, they're not even good Christian values, if you want to bring religion into it.

    Love your country, Mullen. Just don't love it too much. The Constitution is a pitiful and weak thing -- it is not the protector of our great democracy.

    We are.

    --
    The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    1. Re:What a joke by flabbergast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Love your country, Mullen. Just don't love it too much. The Constitution is a pitiful and weak thing -- it is not the protector of our great democracy.
       
      We are.


      I wholeheartedly agree. And I agree with many things you've said: corporations and their bitches, aka lawyers, are consolidating power at an alarming rate and Americans don't do enough to protect our liberties. However, I have issues with your idea of freedom.

        If I'm blocked from attending a town hall meeting put on by my President because I'm a Democrat, I'm not very free.

      If my uncle down south, along with others, is asked to leave his church because he's a card-carrying Democrat, I'm not very free.


      Your idea of freedom seems misguided. You can flip it and look at it from the other point of view. If a congregation believes that a Democrat in their midst is a bad thing, then its their freedom to turn that person or persons away. Is that truly what God would want? Most decidedly not, but its their choice to do so. Likewise, banning someone from a town hall meeting because of their political persuasion is their choice as well. Is it politically savvy to do so? Probably not. Will it create anger and unrest? Yes. Does it infringe on your rights to attend that meeting?

      If you always look from the perspective of how you were screwed of your freedom then any decision anyone makes is an infringment of your freedom. Get pulled over for speeding? Infringment of my freedom! Why? Because I'm obviously not free to speed.

      If neoconservatives can threaten to impeach judges because they don't decide cases based on religious contrine, I'm not very free.

      Sure you're free. Just as neocons are free to threaten to impeach judges for not voting along neocon lines, you're free to fight back if you disagree with them. Simply because you disagree with people doesn't mean your freedom is trampled on. You are guilty of what you imply: that we don't do enough to protect our freedoms.

    2. Re:What a joke by realityfighter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I dunno...banning everyone who doesn't sign a loyalty oath from a meeting designed to give the people access to the President comes pretty close to trampling on the right to petition for redress of greivances. If he had been the challenging candidate, he may have been able to get away with it just being a matter of "political savvy." But he is the President. The questions brought up in that meeting, had it been a real meeting and not a groomed praise group, would have undoubtedly involved how the President had acted in his first term.

      Every American has the right to have their criticism of the government heard by the government. Every American has the right to demand accountability. A President who locks himself away behind loyalty oaths, yes-men and closed doors comes frighteningly close to negating those rights.

      --
      A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
    3. Re:What a joke by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If big businesses can invest their money wisely enough to buy off a Congress, I'm not very free. (See the energy, telecommunications, defense, highway bills.)

      I don't get it? You're complaining because the economic well-being of companies is debated by congress? I'm don't get it.


      Power is, to some degree, like a zero sum game. Political donations influence elected officials.
      The purchase of influence dilutes the influence of voters, and is hence anti-democratic.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  7. Re:Sad Future of Broadband Access in other countri by Detritus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't ignore the fact that the USA's Department of Justice has the perverse idea that since an accident of technology (circuit-switched telephony) made it possible to monitor telephone calls, that situation should continue, regardless of changes in technology. They now view that capability as a "right", forcing others to build backdoors into their systems. It would be trivial to add strong link encryption, and end-to-end encryption for on-network calls, to modern cellular phone systems. Why don't we have it in the USA? Ask the FCC, DoJ and NSA.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat