VoIP Now Technically Illegal In China

Like everything else illegal in China... by zeroRenegade · 2010-12-30 07:04 · Score: 1

such as Twitter and other forms of social media, they will find a way around to be able to use it...

Re:Like everything else illegal in China... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

And there will be ridiculously over-the-top punishments to make examples of individuals who are "disturbing social order".
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/10/11/18/1832240/A-Single-Re-Tweet-Lands-Chinese-Woman-in-Labor-Camp
Re:Like everything else illegal in China... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:21 · Score: 0

You mean like with the RIAA? Oh wait, it all makes sense now...
Re:Like everything else illegal in China... by ljgshkg · 2010-12-30 07:33 · Score: 1

If there is a reason to, that is. For most people, it really doesn't matter.
Re:Like everything else illegal in China... by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-12-30 07:44 · Score: 1

She didn't end up in a labor camp for using Twitter. She ended there for saying something the Chinese government doesn't like to hear.

Wow... by Jawnn · 2010-12-30 07:05 · Score: 1, Flamebait

So even "the commies" are really just tools for the telecom industry.

Re:Wow... by pclminion · 2010-12-30 07:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

That's a very capitalistic way of viewing it... My first thought is that it makes it a lot easier for the Chinese government to be able to tap calls. It's easier to tap when you don't allow private infrastructure to exist.
Re:Wow... by icebike · 2010-12-30 07:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

So even "the commies" are really just tools for the telecom industry.
I presume you are responding to this line in the summary:

is widely seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits.
If you believe that bit, I have a bridge to sell you.
The thing is the Chinese government would rather be seen as a tool than to lose control of the population.
Although the encryption in Skype has allegedly been broken (some say the voice encryption portion is still intact) the ability to scan packetized voice (let alone encrypted packetized voice) in real time is probably simply beyond the resources available, especially with things like skype finding their own routes for traffic.
Voip to carriers can at least be watched at the carrier's premises.
This has nothing to do with profits. This is the same government that blocked almost every western news site on the event of a dissident receiving a Nobel prize last month.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Wow... by magarity · 2010-12-30 07:30 · Score: 2

So even "the commies" are really just tools for the telecom industry.
Umm, the telecom industry in China is state owned, so your comment should read: So even the telecom industry is really just a tool for "the commies".
Re:Wow... by commodore64_love · 2010-12-30 07:46 · Score: 0, Troll

I don't understand why people have a problem with this. A government-run company eliminates the profit motive, is more efficient overall, and ensures everyone has service including those too poor to pay the phone bill.
At least that's what we were told in 2008-9 during the government-run health proposal (aka single payer plan). How is THIS any different? It has all the same benefits.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Wow... by commodore64_love · 2010-12-30 08:12 · Score: 0

Correct.
I don't understand why people have a problem with this. A government-run company eliminates the profit motive, is more efficient overall, and ensures everyone has service including those too poor to pay the bill. It's universal phone service for every one.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Wow... by royallthefourth · 2010-12-30 08:39 · Score: 1

No actual commie has considered China (or Vietnam or Laos &c.) as a state working to build communism for decades.
If you've got a stomach for reading over-the-top longwinded speeches, Enver Hoxha did a good job of explaining revisionism in the USSR, Yugoslavia, and China.
Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 08:44 · Score: 0

is widely seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits.
If you believe that bit, I have a bridge to sell you.
The thing is the Chinese government would rather be seen as a tool than to lose control of the population.
Although the encryption in Skype has allegedly been broken (some say the voice encryption portion is still intact) the ability to scan packetized voice (let alone encrypted packetized voice) in real time is probably simply beyond the resources available, especially with things like skype finding their own routes for traffic.
Voip to carriers can at least be watched at the carrier's premises.
This has nothing to do with profits. This is the same government that blocked almost every western news site on the event of a dissident receiving a Nobel prize last month.
The VOIP restriction appears to only ban computer-to-phone calls not computer-to-computer calls. So skype-to-skype calls are ok but not skype-to-phone calls. Because of this, I believe it's more likely that the new restriction is to support the Chinese telecom industry. Everyone I know in China who makes calls from the computer make computer-to-computer calls (which are free), not computer-to-phone calls. The people who are most likely to be affected by this are businesses who use voip because it's cheaper than paying the telecom industries. For ordinary people, it won't matter much because they only make computer-to-computer call (which are free), and these have not been banned.
Re:Wow... by AK+Marc · 2010-12-30 08:49 · Score: 2

A government-run company eliminates the profit motive, is more efficient overall, and ensures everyone has service including those too poor to pay the phone bill.

I think that's the only thing you've ever said that I agree with. The cheapest mutual fund in the USA is the Social Security Administration (and not by just a little bit, but almost an order of magnitude cheaper than the private choices with similar investments).

Unfortunately, the only thing you've ever said that's correct, you said sarcastically.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 08:59 · Score: 0

So even "the commies" are really just tools for the telecom industry.
Umm, the telecom industry in China is state owned, so your comment should read: So even the telecom industry is really just a tool for "the commies".
The current setup in China isn't "commie" in anything but name anyway- though that was possibly meant by the quotes. The entwining of state and private business interests in modern China is- as some have described it- closer to the first fully mature realisation of Mussolini's original definition of a fascist state, in particular the part where the state and private business interests serve each other.
Re:Wow... by Grishnakh · 2010-12-30 09:18 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yep, it's exactly like the USA. In the USA, there's two political parties, which hold all the political power in the country. One is named "Democrats", as if they have anything to do with democracy. The other is named "Republicans", even though they have nothing in common with republicanism. Instead, they are both actually fascists, who work for corporate interests and only stop to try to fool the voters now and then into making them think they're working for the people, such as by blaming all their corporate-friendly actions on the other party.
In China, there's only one political party, which holds all the political power in the country. It's named "Communists", though, just like the American parties, they don't have anything at all to do with communism. And again, they're fascists, working for corporate interests. However, unlike in America, their actions are helping much of the population through "trickle-down economics", simply because most of the population was so dirt-poor before than the improvements from the new sorta-free-market system seem like a giant leap ahead for them. In America, we're not at a place where trickle-down economics work (mainly because we don't have a gigantic population of dirt-poor serfs), so instead, we're regressing, and experiencing a fast-growing gap between the rich and the poor, with the middle class rapidly disappearing, making us a bigger Banana Republic than any South or Central American country ever was.
Re:Wow... by wagnerrp · 2010-12-30 10:02 · Score: 1

The VOIP restriction appears to only ban computer-to-phone calls not computer-to-computer calls. So skype-to-skype calls are ok but not skype-to-phone calls.
Where do handheld computers factor into that? Devices like the iPod touch and tablets with all the hardware to make a VOIP call, and a similar form factor to a phone, but no access to the cell networks.
Re:Wow... by Z34107 · 2010-12-30 10:18 · Score: 1

The Social Security Administration is not "cheap", and it's not a "mutual fund." Even if you consider it an "investment", it's flirting with bankruptcy. If it's still around 50 years from now, by design only the impoverished will collect more than what they put into it.
Prior to an awful lot of politically-motivated feature creep, it was simply "old age insurance" designed to keep fully half of our nation's elderly from starving to death.

--
DATABASE WOW WOW
Re:Wow... by generica1 · 2010-12-30 10:35 · Score: 1

I feel comfortable with "no ability to access cell network = not a cell phone".

--
JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP JUMP IRRIGATE
Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 10:39 · Score: 0

This is different because, in a free country with a government run, freely available health care system, there are still private health care providers as well, and no-one sane is implying that they should be made illegal. What China is doing here is actually making the free competition illegal to favor the government approved telecom. Also, this telecom is not a government department. It's a corporatist endeavor. You know the whole deal. Public risk and money, privatized profits.
Re:Wow... by AK+Marc · 2010-12-30 10:59 · Score: 1

Social Security is "nearly bankrupt" by law, not mismanagement of the fund. The SSA is more efficient, by nearly an order of magnitude than private companies that take your money and invest it in T-bills. There isn't a private company that beats it. Not one.

Whether you agree with how they get the money or who they pay it to is irrelevant to the efficiency of the organization that enforces Congress's will.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Wow... by delvsional · 2010-12-30 11:55 · Score: 0

How incredibly democrat of you. The word government(or ANYTHING run by them) and efficient never belong in the same sentence, except sarcastically. ie. the postal system and 500 dollar toilet seats. the Government is incredibly efficient. That must be why gas is over 3 dollars a gallon and the unemployment rate is still around 10 percent.

--
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
Re:Wow... by commodore64_love · 2010-12-30 12:22 · Score: 1

The only reason the S.S. has a good return is because approximately half of the Americans die before they have a chance to collect what they originally paid-in. For those persons the return on the investment is around -90% (yes negative return) but the government very carefully cooks the books to avoid that fact from being shared. S.S. is a Ponzi Pyramid scheme and no more sound than the scheme run by Bernie Madoff was.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Wow... by AK+Marc · 2010-12-30 12:26 · Score: 1

Yes, everything bad that's ever happened is because of the government and anything good in spite of. With irrationality like that, who can argue.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Wow... by AK+Marc · 2010-12-30 12:36 · Score: 1

I know the facts contradict your opinion so you aren't looking at them, but I'm talking about the cost to run a low-risk mutual fund that invests in cash-like securities like T-bills. The SSA has the lowest overhead, by a massive margin, beating hundreds of private offerings.

Your irrational personal beliefs about where the money is coming from or going to is irrelevant to the cost of the people administering the fund.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Wow... by magarity · 2010-12-30 12:54 · Score: 1

Correct.
I don't understand why people have a problem with this. A government-run company eliminates the profit motive, is more efficient overall, and ensures everyone has service including those too poor to pay the bill. It's universal phone service for every one.
ChinaMobile and ChinaTelecom do not provide universal service; Chinese people who are too poor to pay do not get service.
Re:Wow... by petermgreen · 2010-12-30 14:20 · Score: 1

A government-run company eliminates the profit motive
Not nessacerally, sometimes governemnts do push for these kinds of things to make a profit which they then use to fund other things but that is largely beside the point.
Without competition the easiest thing to do is to keep everything more or less the same and maybe crank up prices a bit if you think the market will bear it and/or to make up for inflation. Not do radical thinks like realise the cost structure of phone networks has changed and that unmetered plans make the most sense in an era when the cost of connecting a call is minimal.
ensures everyone has service including those too poor to pay the bill.
Afaict government telco monopolies in most places have never done this.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:Wow... by DontLickJesus · 2010-12-30 18:37 · Score: 1

I think an easy way to determine this is to find out if these laws will apply to free services as well. From the article it would seem that it does apply, but enforcement will show the truth. If they only go after pay services first, then later get around to free services, it's more likely profit driven. If instead we see a new rule in the Great Firewall which all-out blocks SIP then we know it's an attempt to regain oversight of their citizens.

Personally I'm sure both play into the whole matter. The Chinese Govt. sees itself as the ultimate Nanny/Father figure which can do no wrong, but I guarantee you this will come back to bite them in the ass. Once there is only 1 protocol in China for VOIP, the dissident blackhats will find a way to record govt communications, and expose to the world the corruption which this govt either doesn't see or refuses to pay attention to. We know this because it's exactly what Americans did when a universal tech which companies and the govt. barely understood was placed in a monopoly.

Regulate communication. I dare you.

--
Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
Re:Wow... by icebike · 2010-12-30 19:35 · Score: 1

If you follow the link to the original story it says

The decision is expected to make Skype, UUCall and other similar services unavailable in China.
Also as far as your claim:

dissident blackhats will find a way to record govt communications, and expose to the world the corruption

I haven't seen any sign of dissident black hats in china, let alone any recording government calls. These people tend to end up in re-education camps.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 22:12 · Score: 0

fast-growing gap between the rich and the poor
This has been said about both China and the US in almost every decade since I've been alive. I'm starting to think its propaganda.

middle class rapidly disappearing
Well, I think the US probably has the largest middle class in the world by a longshot. Our minimum wage here in California, last time I checked, bought more Big Macs than anywhere else in the world outside the US. (In reference to the Big Mac Index and purchasing parity of a currency.) Community College (the 2 of the 4 years of a BA) is pretty cheap, and free if you make under $16,245 a year (work less than fulltime) and are over 23 or married. And no, community college doesn't have entrance exams, and doesn't (usually) turn people away. This is just now catching on worldwide from what I can tell, but nowhere near the prevalence it has here. And yes, education really is that important.

Banana Republic
We throw our leaders out of office by popular initiative midway through and replace them with marijuana-smoking body-building actors. Pot is legal by popular initiative. That ain't no Banana Republic, buddy.
Re:Wow... by C_amiga_fan · 2010-12-31 01:15 · Score: 1

S.S. is a Ponzi Pyramid scheme and no more sound than the scheme run by Bernie Madoff was.

--
FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
Re:Wow... by DontLickJesus · 2010-12-31 10:34 · Score: 1

If you follow the link to the original story it says
I don't get your point here. I was referencing free services like Ventrillo or the like.

I haven't seen any sign of dissident black hats in china, let alone any recording government calls. These people tend to end up in re-education camps.
I'm afraid you got me on that one. Those who don't comply are likely shunted into hard labor or unscrupulous gold farming rings.

--
Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 20:33 · Score: 0
A government-run company eliminates the profit motive, is more efficient overall, and ensures everyone has service including those too poor to pay the phone bill. I think that's the only thing you've ever said that I agree with. The cheapest mutual fund in the USA is the Social Security Administration (and not by just a little bit, but almost an order of magnitude cheaper than the private choices with similar investments). Unfortunately, the only thing you've ever said that's correct, you said sarcastically.
:-D
Both wise, and cunning!
- Speak truth
- Expect flung shit
- Plant crops
- Profit!
Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 20:47 · Score: 0

How incredibly democrat of you. The word government(or ANYTHING run by them) and efficient never belong in the same sentence, except sarcastically. ie. the postal system and 500 dollar toilet seats. the Government is incredibly efficient. That must be why gas is over 3 dollars a gallon and the unemployment rate is still around 10 percent.
Hmmm - the Saudi's keep getting richer, the post office keeps delivering your mail, and your knowledge of aircraft engineering is on par with your ability to hold an original opinion. No wonder you are angry, you've been bamboozled. Despite years of government by Democrats *and* Republicans your country is in such bad shape that without Hollywood *and* your drug trade what remains of your economy would collapse. Ever consider they're all just different dogs with the same leg action? Ditto for Socialism, and every other ism.
And your biggest concern is how much it costs you to get to work - everyday for the rest of your life? Meh. Double-wide arse - single cell thoughts.
Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 21:05 · Score: 0

S.S. is a Ponzi Pyramid scheme and no more sound than the scheme run by Bernie Madoff was.
If you are so secure in your beliefs - which is what they are - how come you feel the need to post several times posing as different people?
No I'm not one of the posters in this thread - I just modded here (and not in this thread).
From outside the US the Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/BarkingMad thing is a puzzle - your own media gives you less information than it gives the rest of the world - who sees them all as duping you people. You treat politics like it's a football team or a flavour of religion. Both sides demand the government "do something" and simultaneously demand it do it smaller, or cheaper *and* get out of your lives. That's when your not suggesting they invade other countries, and look puzzled when it doesn't bring the price of petrol down.... Amusing, and sad. Oh - and Madoff was one man - that's why he got fed to the wolves. You're gonna love the BOA docs :-/
Yeah - this's addressed at you commodore amiga (sigh)
Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 21:27 · Score: 0

The thing is the Chinese government would rather be seen as a tool than to lose control of the population.
Bingo!

Although the encryption in Skype has allegedly been broken (some say the voice encryption portion is still intact) the ability to scan packetized voice (let alone encrypted packetized voice) in real time is probably simply beyond the resources available, especially with things like skype finding their own routes for traffic.
Perhaps, but I doubt that is the main issue. How about - they don't want people trying to get away with it because it would force them punish those that use it to upset the gov - which would snowball out of control, and the government is wary of "Western media" greeding/leading "their" people away from the "true" path....
Re:Wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 22:19 · Score: 0

fast-growing gap between the rich and the poor
This has been said about both China and the US in almost every decade since I've been alive. I'm starting to think its propaganda.

middle class rapidly disappearing
Well, I think the US probably has the largest middle class in the world by a longshot.
Nope - China has, India will soon. Their percentages are much smaller though. The US middle class has been shrinking steadily since Reagan. Pretty much the same across the Western world. 30 years ago most people worked one job, 40 hours a week, one income per household, and owned their homes outright before their children left home. Sure we buy and own more now - but the basics don't change

Our minimum wage here in California, last time I checked, bought more Big Macs than anywhere else in the world outside the US.

You have more Macca's than anywhere else in the world. Period.

(In reference to the Big Mac Index and purchasing parity of a currency.) Community College (the 2 of the 4 years of a BA) is pretty cheap, and free if you make under $16,245 a year (work less than fulltime) and are over 23 or married. And no, community college doesn't have entrance exams, and doesn't (usually) turn people away. This is just now catching on worldwide from what I can tell,
Can't speak for Canada. But New Zealand, England, Scotland, France, Germany, Australia (TAFEs) - have had them for as long as I can remember. Public libraries and funded places in universities are probably a good indicator of an open society. Activism for human rights, animal rights, and "greenies" (and possibly, lack of support for trade unions) are probably better indicators of the middle class (trustafarians?)

but nowhere near the prevalence it has here. And yes, education really is that important.
Agreed!

Banana Republic
We throw our leaders out of office by popular initiative midway through and replace them with marijuana-smoking body-building actors.

Pot is legal by popular initiative.
Kudos. Don't discount the amount of grudging foreign respect your Governor has gotten for economic management - pretty hard to earn when you've got the tag of a condom full of walnuts - and the pot slag tag (I'm not being sarcastic, respect where respect is due).

That ain't no Banana Republic, buddy.
In my country we call that working class stiff. We don't call Macca's a restaurant, or two jobs a career, and if I made less than $200K US a year I'd be looking for a second job *and* my wife would work because she'd have to. (national average is $120K - "actual" non-full-time-employment rate of over 18's is around 22%)
The only difference between Argentina and North America is size, and about ten years - take a look at the level of personal debt and trade balance. We have universal health care, good public education *and* almost half the population chooses (and can afford) private alternatives - and (sadly) we *think* our living standards are low....
You are right about the US largely being (relatively) middle class though - foreigners look at inner Washington DC, New York State projects - and scenes from Cops and think that's the US poor - without stopping to think how much the bum's shoes cost. For true US poverty check out Virginia and Missouri, or the outskirts of LA - even then the poor are looking good compared to the majority of the worlds poor.

How to play Chinese Monopoly by KublaiKhan · 2010-12-30 07:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Now that's a happy little situation right there. I'm glad the FCC just stated, flat-out, that telco operators wouldn't be able to pull that particular shenanigans with services like skype here.

Though really, it's not all that surprising. China's gone for home-grown 'equivalents' of popular overseas services for quite some time--look at their 'facebook' and their 'google' workalikes, all doubtless with more than enough spyware built into 'em to keep an eye on dissidents.

--
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree

Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly by threaded · 2010-12-30 07:12 · Score: 0

Go for the orange pieces.
According to Jim Slater in The Mayfair Set, the Orange property group is the best to own because players land on them more often, as a result of the Chance cards Go to Jail, Advance to St. Charles Place (Pall Mall), Advance to Reading Railroad (King's Cross Station) and Go Back Three Spaces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_%28game%29

--
threadeds blog
Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly by KublaiKhan · 2010-12-30 07:14 · Score: 1

I've always liked the red set--Illinois, Kentucky, and that other one I don't recall off the top of my head. It seems to do me well.

Besides, the color is thematically appropriate for the chinese edition, where the Minister of Finance keeps a close eye on players who are too successful and do not bribe him sufficiently. ;-p

--
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:17 · Score: 1

Don't worry. In America, it will be perfectly legal to use VoIP, but all ISPs will simply use their terms of service to cut you off. If there is one thing to learn from Wikileaks and how they were cut off by Amazon, PayPal, VISA, Mastercard, and hell, even Bank Of America, is that your "freedom" is at a whim of the companies that enable you to do what you do. You try to do something that can endanger their profits, and they will cut you off and you will have no recourse. (and yes, I know that State Dept. called Amazon et al. and asked them to do them a favor, but in the end it was the corporations that did the deed - gov't hands were tied by that "Just a Fucking Piece of Paper" constitution (google the phrase, if you don't know where it comes from))
So yes, "The Right" can continue to rant against Net Netrality because "The Left" wants it. And they may even win. And hell, even now there are ISPs that are blocking SIP calls already. As some SIP providers are rolling out VPN to counter, I expect IPSs just to block all traffic to SIP providers.... And that is *not* China, that is *here* in America. It doesn't matter if something is legal, if you can't get it.
Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly by threaded · 2010-12-30 07:19 · Score: 1

Some others prefer the light blue Kuomintang set, as these properties are slightly higher in value than their predecessors, but later groups can still beat them. It costs $1070 to buy and put hotels on all 3 properties here. They rank 2nd out of 10 in payoff percentage, and 6th out of 10 in visitation frequency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuomintang
http://monopoly.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Light_Blue_Properties

--
threadeds blog
Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly by Desler · 2010-12-30 07:28 · Score: 1

You try to do something that can endanger their profits, and they will cut you off and you will have no recourse.

No shit? It's almost as if those are.... businesses whose purpose is to.... make money!
Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly by Skarecrow77 · 2010-12-30 07:30 · Score: 1

The orange properties are your best long term reliable moneymakers, although light purple and light blue are not bad either. Red are strong as well, and nearly as landed on as orange, but take significantly more development money for not much more payoff.
late game I find landing on developed light blues to be painful, but usually not fatal. Landing on oranges can often prove to be directly fatal, and even if not, they can often prove to be the beginning of the end. I would often work out a trade with someone landing on my hotel'd orange where instead of them mortgaging themselves to death and liquidating their hotels on baltic and mediterranian, they can keep those two and just pay me $500 (in case I land on those hotels) and give me 4 or 5 good pieces of strategic property. They still hold on to the idea that they can somehow win with their meger holdings. People LOVE those hotels, even though on expensive properties 3 houses often makes more sense, especially if you're trying to lock up the housing market to keep other people from upgrading.
Suffice to say, people don't like to play monopoly with me much anymore.
Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly by GameboyRMH · 2010-12-30 07:38 · Score: 1

Wow, which ISPs block SIP? Just so I can warn people to stay away from them.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly by KublaiKhan · 2010-12-30 08:18 · Score: 1

Those FCC rules that I referred to in the post up top specifically block that now. Someone wasn't paying attention.

--
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 09:24 · Score: 0

Wow, which ISPs block SIP? Just so I can warn people to stay away from them.
Clearwire in Belgium, for example.
And expect your OpenVPN sessions to be 30 times slower.
Been there, done that.
Re:How to play Chinese Monopoly by operagost · 2010-12-30 10:14 · Score: 1

So what you're telling us is that we should let the government regulate the internet, because they might tell us what VoIP to use, but at least we won't have companies telling us what VoIP to use?

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.

or? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:06 · Score: 1

Or so they can record and monitor all calls...

Re:or? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

This.
That the article states "and is widely seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits" is laughable. This is about China's need to control the lives of their citizens, period.
Re:or? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-12-30 07:26 · Score: 1

I wouldn't be so sure: Skype, through its local joint venture "TOM-Skype", has been more than helpful(if not too competent) in assisting the authorities with surveillance. The "TOM-Skype" client is bugged, so it has full access to users' messages before encryption or after decryption, making surveillance trivial regardless of whether or not Skype itself is cracked.

Given the generally supine nature of the main competitor, it would, in fact, be wholly reasonable to suspect that this is a pro-incumbent move.

good riddance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:07 · Score: 0

Skype is utter crap.

Re:good riddance by icebike · 2010-12-30 07:28 · Score: 1

One major failure in 8 years is crap?
For the majority of users its a very good (and encrypted) solution to keeping in touch with a crystal clear voice channel.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:good riddance by d6 · 2010-12-30 07:42 · Score: 1

>> One major failure in 8 years is crap?

two actually

uptime wise, I would say it is acceptable, tho. The number of times I get busy signals when calling a non busy phone is not. I've had "skype in" for a couple years now and doubt very much i will renew it, as the availability is unacceptable, at least in my area.

I like skype. I don't mind sharing a bit of bandwidth peer to peer wise to make it work. it isn't quite up to speed, tho
Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:55 · Score: 0

Plus they just gave everyone a $1 credit for last week's epic fail. Which is nice.
Re:good riddance by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 12:19 · Score: 0

No, the continuous failure of not using a peer-reviewed key exchange method, and its failure to use standards so it's not interoperable with other VoIP software. Name two programs that speak Skype's protocol. The first one is easy. The second one is impossible.
Re:good riddance by Ash-Fox · 2010-12-30 21:46 · Score: 1

No, the continuous failure of not using a peer-reviewed key exchange method
And this matters, why?

its failure to use standards so it's not interoperable with other VoIP software.
Works for me with other VoIP software. Maybe you just don't know how to use Skype services properly?

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

In Communist China... by Nadaka · 2010-12-30 07:09 · Score: 2

In Communist China,
Competition regulates you!

Re:In Communist China... by Stargoat · 2010-12-30 07:53 · Score: 2

That's about it, too. Almost everything in China is illegal. It's illegal to own a butter knife. It's illegal to conduct most business transactions. It's certainly illegal to bribe, which is necessary to get anything done.
But that is what happens in a country that has so many laws. No one respects any laws.

--
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Re:In Communist China... by hedwards · 2010-12-30 08:09 · Score: 1

Considering what they're trying to accomplish it would probably be easier to make everything illegal that isn't specifically made legal.
Re:In Communist China... by ross.w · 2010-12-30 08:19 · Score: 1

That's how it works. When pretty much everything is illegal, it's easy to find a pretext to arrest someone you don't like.

--
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Re:In Communist China... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 13:24 · Score: 0

Do you mean a butterfly-knife, or are they clamping down on formal cutlery and table-wear now? What next the cake fork!!!!!!
Re:In Communist China... by Stargoat · 2010-12-31 03:33 · Score: 1

That would be the formal tableware type.

--
Hoist Number One and Number Six.

I love where I live by hodet · 2010-12-30 07:09 · Score: 1, Offtopic

So what do people in China do for fun? According to the news they aren't allowed to do anything. Not meant as a flame, just wondering because we never hear anything good.

Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:25 · Score: 0

That's because your media conglomerates decided that you should only hear the bad news of other countries. Makes you think that you have a better life than you actually have. Which makes you complacent and an ideal consumer.
Re:I love where I live by commodore64_love · 2010-12-30 07:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

>>>So what do people in China do for fun?
Sex?
I hear those Chinese ladies are, to quote a song, "Ladies in the street but a freak in the bed." You just have to make sure not to get pregnant more than once. :-|
Somebody else wrote:
>>>And despite doing things like this constantly, China is still the darling of all the so-called "free trade" advocates.
Kinda like Fascist Germany, Italy, and Spain were considered marvels by their contemporaries. They were the 1930s boom economies with private corporations under State control. A bit like China today.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:I love where I live by GameboyRMH · 2010-12-30 07:41 · Score: 1

Somebody else wrote:
>>>And despite doing things like this constantly, China is still the darling of all the so-called "free trade" advocates.
Of course, it's just like a Gilded Age America, today! (from a business standpoint at least)
Did you know Coca-Cola set up an office in Somalia?

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:I love where I live by Aeros · 2010-12-30 07:42 · Score: 1

They do get to make a lot of fireworks!
Re:I love where I live by oldspewey · 2010-12-30 07:45 · Score: 1

So what do people in China do for fun?
Laughing. Lots of laughing.

--
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Re:I love where I live by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-12-30 07:49 · Score: 1

One big reason why so many praised fascist and Nazi regimes back in the day - before they turned too violent - was because they were perceived as the only viable option to communism. A popular line of thinking was that the low classes, once they would discover that they are a supermajority with many common goals, would take over in any completely democratic society; whereas fascist authoritarianism would keep the "rabble" in line.
Re:I love where I live by ross.w · 2010-12-30 08:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, enjoy your AIDs.

--
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
Re:I love where I live by clone52431 · 2010-12-30 08:29 · Score: 1

That’s AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.

--
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:I love where I live by hodet · 2010-12-30 08:44 · Score: 1

Projecting - a defense mechanism by which your own traits and emotions are attributed to someone else.
..and you know it's true as you went through the trouble to logout to post.
Re:I love where I live by clarkkent09 · 2010-12-30 08:47 · Score: 0

You mean how they took over in Russia and happily ensured decades of starvation and slavery for themselves and their children.

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 08:49 · Score: 0

Ad hominem, and incorrect with respect to the logging out.
I'd like to propose an experiment. For a whole week, watch the news on any European or Asian station, especially world events.
It might give you new insights. Or not, that's ok too. It won't hurt to try, does it?
Re:I love where I live by WrongMonkey · 2010-12-30 08:51 · Score: 1

He's talking about from the perspective of the 1920s and 1930s, either before most of the Soviet atrocities were committed or before they were widely known.
Re:I love where I live by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-12-30 09:03 · Score: 2

Yes, that is exactly the argument that was used: clearly the "rabble" who did it to themselves and others should not be able to really run the country, democracy be damned. Hence, fascism. Thanks for demonstrating the point so eloquently, while also showing that this thinking is alive and well on the American Right.
On a factual note, the folk who took over in Russia did not do so in a democratic society (it was a monarchy before the February revolution in 1917, and junta before the October revolution). Furthermore, they were not the majority, either - Bolsheviks were primarily the party of proletariat, and most of Russian population were peasants. After the October revolution, a democratically elected Constituent Assembly was convened to define the future of the state and write its constitution; the vast majority in it were peasant-backed socialist esers, not Bolsheviks or other communist parties. When Bolsheviks realized that they're going to be kicked out from power if they abide by the decisions of the Assembly, they dissolved it at gunpoint; so ultimately it was a coup.
Re:I love where I live by couchslug · 2010-12-30 09:12 · Score: 0

Let's not forget that China now is still, literally, paradise for the workers compared to ANY time in the past couple of hundred years or better. In 1948, China was a smoking ruin.
It's not suburban America or Europe, but the progress rate is tremendous.
As we have seen in other countries where democracy is inappropriate to the local culture (Iraq, Afghanistan), attempts to make "them" like "us" are destabilizing disasters. China is prospering in its own way, and a few casualties are the normal cost of industrial progress.

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:I love where I live by clarkkent09 · 2010-12-30 09:21 · Score: 0

Fascism is not the only alternative to true democracy. For example, if you are from US and you paid attention in your civics class you would know that we do not have a democracy but a constitutional republic. The rule of the majority is limited in a variety of ways, specifically in order to prevent the tyranny of majority over minority. Since you are such a democracy champion, let me ask you something. In your view, if the 51% of the voters vote that the other 49% should be killed that is ok? Government is a difficult thing to get right and there are no perfect options and there will always be compromise, but if you really believe in class warfare crap about the majority of people, ignorant and uninterested in government as most of them are, rising up and producing a workers paradise you are as nuts as those remaining Marxist creeps still to be found crawling around even today. Things like that have been tried before and in every single case they ended in a complete disaster as every system that doesn't take into account human nature is bound to end.

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Re:I love where I live by Grishnakh · 2010-12-30 09:30 · Score: 2

Yes, that is exactly the argument that was used: clearly the "rabble" who did it to themselves and others should not be able to really run the country, democracy be damned. Hence, fascism. Thanks for demonstrating the point so eloquently, while also showing that this thinking is alive and well on the American Right.
You mean the American Left and Right. Just look at the actions of the Democrats since 2007, and of Obama: Not significantly different from when the Republicans were in power, sham healthcare "reform" that was really a give-away to big insurance companies, giant give-aways ("bail-outs") to mismanaged companies with no strings attached, environmental policy just as bad as Bush's under Ken Salazar, no shutdown of Gitmo despite campaign promises, continuing wars costing billions per week just to protect profits of American corporations, I could go on and on.
The idea that there's any difference between the "Left" and the "Right" in this country is folly. They're really the same group of people, they just pander to different sides to keep the voters divided and distracted.
Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 11:29 · Score: 0

I've had plenty of Chinese ladies. They're cold fish, every one. To most of them, sex is about mating and breeding. The rest of them are so riddled with guilt and shame that they can't enjoy themselves. European ladies are by far the most sensuous and creative in bed. Most American women are just as bad as Chinese when it comes to hang-ups, but this is changing as the free internet becomes inundated with amateur pornography. (porn is illegal in china, along with Google, Facebook, Skype, political campaigns, punk rock music, Catholicism, gay sex, and "Brown Sugar" by the Rolling Stones). Of course, 99% of the time, the laws in China aren't enforced; 1% of the time the laws are enforced with maximum publicity "to set an example". But back to the point: if you're considering a mail order bride, go with a Russian girl. They're kinkier and less materialistic than Chinese.
Re:I love where I live by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 12:04 · Score: 0

Yeah, enjoy your AIDs.
He probably does enjoy the aides, and the au pairs, and chefs, and nannies, and maids. A few Yuan goes a long way over there.
Re:I love where I live by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-12-30 12:10 · Score: 1

Fascism is not the only alternative to true democracy. For example, if you are from US and you paid attention in your civics class you would know that we do not have a democracy but a constitutional republic.

I am not from US, and so, thank God, I know that the concepts of "republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive, and that US is a democratic republic.
I would also like to remind that US is not the only country practicing representative democracy, and, indeed, most European countries were also representative democracies (either republics, or constitutional monarchies) back in the day when fascism was popular.

Since you are such a democracy champion, let me ask you something. In your view, if the 51% of the voters vote that the other 49% should be killed that is ok?
No, but when 51% of the citizens really want to kill the other 49%, there's nothing you can do to prevent it. Any kind of constitution or other similar legal restraint on the power of the majority goes out of the window the moment said majority decides that it wants its way anyway.
Heck, it doesn't even need to be violent. Even in "republic-not-democracy!!!1!" US, the only thing that legally stops 51% from imposing their will on the remaining 49% is the constitution, and that can be amended. That takes more than 51%, but is it really any different if you have 70% vs 30%?
And, as a matter of fact, it is theoretically possible to amend US constitution even with less than 50% of citizens supporting that: because you can have the states vote for the amendments rather than people, and small states get the same vote despite having significantly less population, those small states can gang up and have their way despite the lack of popular support. So much for republic.

Government is a difficult thing to get right and there are no perfect options and there will always be compromise, but if you really believe in class warfare crap about the majority of people, ignorant and uninterested in government as most of them are, rising up and producing a workers paradise you are as nuts as those remaining Marxist creeps still to be found crawling around even today.
I'm not a Marxist or a communist, nor have I advocated either of those ideologies anywhere in this thread. I merely remarked that fascism was widely supported by capitalism proponents in the first half of 20th century because it was seen as the only opposition to communism that could stand up to it. In other words, the capitalists of the day were willing to crack down on any and all personal and political freedoms and the corresponding institutions (such as, well, representative democracy aka "republic" in US parlance) if that would preserve the legitimacy of private capital. We're damn lucky that there were enough sane people there to prevail - if Germany would've allied with Britain, as Hitler always dreamed, together they'd steamroll over USSR, and then fascism would rule supreme on the continent - and it is a much more stable, hard to topple form of totalitarianism compared to communism (because its economics are grounded in reality, and it won't destroy itself from within).
Re:I love where I live by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-12-30 12:13 · Score: 1

I'm not a fan of any mainstream American politicians in general, but I was talking about one very specific thing there. Namely, that some people cheer authoritarian dictators, so long as said dictators crack down on ideologies they personally don't like (such as communism). For all the authoritarianism of the American Left, I've never heard that kind of rhetoric from them, but hearing apologetics for, say, Franco or Pinochet from right-wingers is very common.
Re:I love where I live by commodore64_love · 2010-12-30 12:28 · Score: 1

I don't comprehend how you (and others) equate Fascism and "American Right" as being the same thing?
The American Right embraces constitutionally-limited government that is relatively weak and small in size..... the exact opposite of a Totalitarian fascist state.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:I love where I live by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-12-30 12:51 · Score: 2

I did not equate the American Right with fascism. I said that many right-wingers historically supported, and even today support, fascist regimes cracking down on democratic institutions if said institutions lead to dominance of "undesirable" ideologies such as communism. Good example is apologetics of Pinochet and his violent suppression of democratically elected but socialist Aliende. Many right wingers love Pinochet because of his economic policies and opposition to socialism.
Oh, and American Right = small government? You've got to be kidding. This hasn't been true since Reagan at least. Right wingers are perfectly happy to use government to forcibly oppress citizens on social issues (morality and sexuality, marriage, abortion, drugs). They are only liberal when it comes to economic regulation.
Liberrarians generally align more with Right in US, God knowd why, but they do not make Right. Neo-cons do.
Re:I love where I live by clarkkent09 · 2010-12-30 13:35 · Score: 1

Good example is apologetics of Pinochet and his violent suppression of democratically elected but socialist Aliende. Many right wingers love Pinochet because of his economic policies and opposition to socialism.

I wouldn't say that people "love" Pinochet but given the two bad options that existed at the time, it is pretty obvious to me that the less bad one had won. Allende may have been democratically elected, but it is pretty well understood now that with Soviet and Castro's backing he was planning to nationalize industry and turn Chile into another Cuba. Large secret shipments of weapons from Soviet Union were already on their way to Allende at the time of the coup. Ask Chileans and Cubans today where they would rather live.
Liberrarians generally align more with Right in US, God knowd why, but they do not make Right. Neo-cons do.

Neo-cons are a group of (mostly) former marxists with a specific foreign interventionist agenda and not really particularly socially conservative. Left and right are completely inadequate terms to describe the political spectrum, I wish we would stop using them. But if by Right you mean the Republican party, then I think social conservatives still call the shots, not neo-cons. With Tea Party recently, and the economy in the toilet, more emphasis has been placed on small government, less spending etc, but there is still a long way to go. Any Republican candidate for high office still has to be socially conservative to have any chance.

For me, as a libertarian, it's a matter of lesser of two evils. Social issues where I disagree with Republicans, are just less important to me than the economic issues where I disagree with Democrats. BTW, there is less disagreement between two parties on social issues than you think. Just about all Democrat politicians, including Obama, are pretty conservative when it comes to religion, gay marriage, abortion, drugs etc.

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Re:I love where I live by fishexe · 2010-12-30 18:55 · Score: 1

I don't comprehend how you (and others) equate Fascism and "American Right" as being the same thing?
British Fascist Party in the 1930s: After the people democratically elect their leader, he should then have unlimited discretionary authority because he will enact the will of the people by virtue of having been elected leader, whereas having checks and balances will frustrate the will of the people.
Bush Administration of the 2000s: The President has the prerogative to make the entire executive branch do his personal will and bidding by virtue of having been elected President, including turning non-political offices to political functions and having members of the executive branch violate duly-enacted legislation when he determines that it is necessary.
Not the same, but scarily similar in their logic.

The American Right embraces constitutionally-limited government that is relatively weak and small in size...
For a suitably narrow definition of "American Right". Narrow enough to leave out all right-wing senators except one or two and all right-wing congressional representatives except a dozen or so. The rest of the American Right just uses Constitutional and small-government rhetoric while embracing no such thing.

... the exact opposite of a Totalitarian fascist state.
True, if that were what the "American Right" actually stood for. It would be really great if the majority of the American Right were libertarians, but they're not. The majority of the American Right believes the government should ban gays and atheists, fight wars wherever we feel like we're threatened, continue the war on drugs indefinitely regardless of the cost, and expand Medicare and Social Security while at the same time cutting taxes.

--
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Re:I love where I live by fishexe · 2010-12-30 19:38 · Score: 1

Good example is apologetics of Pinochet and his violent suppression of democratically elected but socialist Aliende. Many right wingers love Pinochet because of his economic policies and opposition to socialism. I wouldn't say that people "love" Pinochet but given the two bad options that existed at the time, it is pretty obvious to me that the less bad one had won. Allende may have been democratically elected, but it is pretty well understood now that with Soviet and Castro's backing he was planning to nationalize industry and turn Chile into another Cuba.
Yeah, those dumbasses fucked up Democracy by electing the wrong guy when clearly the one we wanted was better for them, so it's a good thing we shoved our guy down their throats. Tens of thousands of people tortured to death and millions of people unable to enjoy basic political freedoms was really a small price to pay to avoid having to let those people suffer the government they chose, right?

Large secret shipments of weapons from Soviet Union were already on their way to Allende at the time of the coup.

Yeah, those scheming Soviets, how dare they send military support to a sovereign leader elected by his people? Much better to give military support to a vicious would-be dictator so he can overthrow said sovereign leader, like the US did.

Ask Chileans and Cubans today where they would rather live.
Really a moot point because Chile was under no threat of becoming "another Cuba". Allende's planned nationalization of industry was the extension of a grassroots mass-movement of workers who were already seizing industry and operating it in the name of the name of the Chilean people all over the country; Allende would only be formalizing what was already happening. Cuba's nationalization was the result of a top-down decree by a leader who came to power in a military revolution that never enjoyed the support of a majority of the Cuban populace. I know to some folks all nationalized industry looks the same, but it's not. Look closer and you can see the difference: it's like the difference between Red China before and after the Great Leap Forward, which shows dramatic and measurable differences between one basis for a socialist economy and another.

Liberrarians generally align more with Right in US, God knowd why, but they do not make Right. Neo-cons do. Neo-cons are a group of (mostly) former marxists with a specific foreign interventionist agenda and not really particularly socially conservative. Left and right are completely inadequate terms to describe the political spectrum, I wish we would stop using them. But if by Right you mean the Republican party, then I think social conservatives still call the shots, not neo-cons. With Tea Party recently, and the economy in the toilet, more emphasis has been placed on small government, less spending etc, but there is still a long way to go. Any Republican candidate for high office still has to be socially conservative to have any chance.
I agree.

For me, as a libertarian, it's a matter of lesser of two evils. Social issues where I disagree with Republicans, are just less important to me than the economic issues where I disagree with Democrats.
So let me get this straight: if given the choice between a government that tells you to give it money so it can spend it on things that voters have deemed necessary but otherwise leaves you alone and a government that tells you what to do in most areas of your life but keeps its hands out of your pocketbook, you'd choose the latter? That would be the lesser evil?

BTW, there is less disagreement between two parties on social issues than you think. Just about all Democrat politicians, including Obama, are pretty conservative when it comes to religion, gay marriage, abortion, drugs etc.
Not between the rank and file of the two parties, but you're right, when it comes to the politicians nominated the parties they're so close it's sad.

--
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Re:I love where I live by clarkkent09 · 2010-12-30 20:30 · Score: 1

Well you can argue all day about what would have happened but to me the claim that Allende was planning a coup of his own is reasonably credible, what with a month long visit by Castro, secret Cuban and Soviet weapons caches found in Chile etc. I don't think there was a majority socialist movement in Chile. It was always a heavily divided country politically and Allende only won the election narrowly and could not implement widespread nationalization without imposing some kind of dictatorship. However, although it may have been legitimate for Pinochet to execute a coup if there was an imminent coup from the other side (especially in the cold war context with CIA and KGB involved heavily on either side) I cannot excuse the subsequent excesses, torture, disappearances etc. I thought the widespread leftist apologists for Soviet Union of the "you have to break some eggs" kind (which are easy to make when you are not one of the eggs) were disgusting and so were right wing apologists for Pinochet.

So let me get this straight: if given the choice between a government that tells you to give it money so it can spend it on things that voters have deemed necessary but otherwise leaves you alone

You must be joking. Liberals in the US leave you alone? Just about all nanny state regulation of what is legal and illegal to sell/buy/eat/drink/smoke etc comes from the left. In San Francisco they even banned the happy meal for Christ's sake. Social Security forces me to pay for an awful retirement plan, obamacare forces me to pay for a specific health insurance plan, I work 4 months of the year for the benefit of others due to a variety of welfare schemes. Social conservatives are mostly focused on few things that their bronze age book tells them are bad but it's not really in the same league. They might not like gay marriage (and there are valid arguments on both sides) but they certainly don't want to ban civil unions among gays and that sort of thing. On drugs, again there is a valid argument even for libertarians when it comes to banning heavy drugs (as a person on meth for example is a danger to others, not just themselves) but I don't think there is any valid argument for prohibition of soft drugs. Sure, conservatives frown on things like porn and want to censor bad language and such but that's a lost cause for them as freedom of speech laws are solid as is the separation of church and state. No, I have a lot more to fear from the left when it comes to my personal freedom than from the right.

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Re:I love where I live by Peeteriz · 2010-12-31 00:51 · Score: 1

In actions, the political representatives of American Right practice extension of government, strengthening the government, avoiding and overturning constitutional limitations, and having a strong symbiosis between the state and related industry conglomerates with none of that 'arms-length' liberal stuff.
In words, maybe they are as you say, and maybe their voters do think as you say - but it's irrelevant if they are acting like fascists.

Its all for the better by alexborges · 2010-12-30 07:09 · Score: 1

The more they tighten the grip, the less productive they will be.

Either the chinese find a way to soften their government, or they will never be the power they could be.

--
NO SIG

Re:Its all for the better by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:18 · Score: 0

The more they tighten the grip, the more star systems will slip through their fingers.

FTFY
Also, you can't win, China. If you strike VoIP down, it shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine...
Re:Its all for the better by icebike · 2010-12-30 07:29 · Score: 1

They will never soften this government. They will have to wait till they all die off of natural causes.
In 30 years, it will be a different world in China.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Its all for the better by Nadaka · 2010-12-30 07:37 · Score: 2

Yes, but what way will it go?
There is a large and dedicated movement of young Chinese, ultra nationalist, Han racial supremacists who are so radical and agressive that even the powers that be inside the CPC have had a hard time reigning them in.
China will change, but I would not blindly assume it will be for the better.
Re:Its all for the better by mcgrew · 2010-12-30 08:59 · Score: 1

In thirty years it will be a different world everywhere. Thirty years ago there were no cell phones, no DVDs, computers were mostly consigned to business, CDs were brand new and damned expensive, there was no TSA or DHS, you could smoke a cigarette at your desk at work, affordable VHS was new, the Space Shuttle was brand new.
And there was no way to predict any of the craziness that's happened in the last three decades.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Its all for the better by Grishnakh · 2010-12-30 09:39 · Score: 1

And there was no way to predict any of the craziness that's happened in the last three decades.
Sure there was: you just had to look at the craziness that had happened in the previous three decades: growing corporate power, the military-industrial complex, the quagmire that was Vietnam, etc. The end of WWII is when things really started going bad in the USA, though the 20s with Prohibition and the growth of organized crime was pretty screwed-up too.
Face it, the USA is really just a 3rd-world country that basically won the lottery in WWII by being the only industrialized country left standing, which then got super wealthy by rebuilding all the others. The money and power was too much for it to handle, and it eventually became very corrupt.
It'd be really interesting to know what the world would be like now if the USA had stayed out of WWI, causing Britain and France to lose, and Hitler to never have come to power in Germany and start WWII. I think things would probably be a lot better, overall. There was never a good reason for the US to enter WWI; it only happened because American companies were owed a lot of debt by Britain, and wouldn't have been repaid if Britain lost the war (in effect, our actions in WWI were a corporate bail-out!).

China by mark72005 · 2010-12-30 07:09 · Score: 0

In Soviet China, Vonage watches YOU!

two-for-one! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:10 · Score: 1

So there's two things established governments do best: protecting and expanding their own power, and protecting the financial interests of the rich and powerful.
Here the Chinese government can protect their ability to surveil all voice comms, while simultaneously protecting the state telecoms' profits.

It's like killing 2 girls with 1 cup!

Protect state-owned biz by outlawing competition by mrnobo1024 · 2010-12-30 07:13 · Score: 1

And despite doing things like this constantly, China is still the darling of all the so-called "free trade" advocates.

Shows how badly China owns us by l0ungeb0y · 2010-12-30 07:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Our government and corporations stand idly by while China infiltrates our military, government and corporate networks, commits blatant acts of corporate espionage, places unfair regulations on foreign companies operations within their country and now pulls blatant protectionist laws to stifle competition.

But nothing will be done because China is the largest emerging economy on the planet and no one can afford to pass up a piece of that pie.
Back in the day the US and other nations would be slinging trade embargos left and right and playing hard ball. Today, we're so weak and poor we just bend over and take it.

Re:Shows how badly China owns us by mangamuscle · 2010-12-30 07:27 · Score: 1

Do not worry, even as you read this they are furiously working at neck break pace in schemes to duplicate the chinese model, the USA will have the chinese model even before Fox becomes a porn channel.
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:27 · Score: 0

What exactly do you expect our "government and corporations" to do? The fact of the matter is that we are beholden to China. Without their good will, our economy is destroyed. Militarily we might, MIGHT win a war - for now. China has been the worlds dominant economy for the last 18 of 20 centuries. Why exactly do you think that the US should somehow be on top?
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by icebike · 2010-12-30 07:35 · Score: 1

Our government and corporations stand idly by while China infiltrates our military, government and corporate networks, commits blatant acts of corporate espionage,
Our government and corporations stand idly by because we have not given them the China-like powers of control to prevent it.
To totally control china you would have to BE like china, and you (yes, I mean YOU personally, l0ungeb0y) would be the first to complain if our government gained such power.
There is nothing about this move that is in any way related to a protectionist stifling of competition. Its all about that level of control over its citizens that you seem to find lacking in western society.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:42 · Score: 0

[quote]Its all about that level of control over its citizens that you seem to [b]still[/b] find lacking in western society.[/quote]
There, fixed that for ya.
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by Pharmboy · 2010-12-30 07:44 · Score: 1

Putting embargoes and tariffs on China doesn't require control over the citizens, it just requires balls. Right now, politicians are more concerned with keeping Walmart stocked with cheap "stuff".

--
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by alvieboy · 2010-12-30 07:55 · Score: 2

I'd say: whose debt is that ?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/chinas-debt-to-us-treasury-more-than-indicated/
You can't mess with China. Because if they want, they can ruin US Economy.
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:56 · Score: 0

Our government and corporations stand idly by while China infiltrates our military, government and corporate networks, commits blatant acts of corporate espionage, places unfair regulations on foreign companies operations within their country and now pulls blatant protectionist laws to stifle competition.
And sadly all of it happened and happens in the name of profit. Your overlords (I'm from another country which sucks even more) were too eager to increase their profits and now all of you pay the price.
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by hedwards · 2010-12-30 08:15 · Score: 1

That's a myth, doing so would ruin them worse than it would ruin us. We do still have the capability to produce our own food, water and energy. Well, excluding most of our oil needs.

OTOH were they to do that they would majorly piss off most of the developed world.
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by Stregano · 2010-12-30 08:48 · Score: 1

Maybe if the US government was not so worried about making corporations happy and turning the USA into the CSA (corporate states of america), we would not have any of these problems

--
The world is how you make it
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 09:08 · Score: 0

I can remember when people used to talk about penetrating the 100+ million Japanese market. Except for a few crumbs here and there, that never happened. Japan demonstrated the methodology to China. Rule #1 - Never, ever allow your trade balance to even approach negative. Rule #2 and others are of no importance.
Just feed them cheap products and they'll keep their snout in the trough. And they'll never ask why we are fattening them up. Oink, oink!!
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by Steauengeglase · 2010-12-30 09:12 · Score: 1

If that were the case, this problem would have had to have been solved before you or I were born. China crawling out of the post industrial era has been inevitable since that era began. This isn't something new, economist have been fretting over it since the 1920s. It was simply ignored for the longest time thanks to WW2 and some less than brilliant decisions before, after and during the Great Leap Forward.
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 10:31 · Score: 1

DISCLOSURE: not an US citizen.
> Back in the day the US and other nations would be slinging trade embargos left and right and playing hard ball. Today, we're so weak and poor we just bend over and take it.
You were weak back then: you were no better that the rest -- i.e. the world.
You ought to be prepared for what happens now: didn't you ever think China would stand up? Don't you think the world will have a single, de facto, government one day?
What were you thinking? That everyone would change opinion and start measuring things in US units? Do you think English is the best language and everyone should use it?
Funny thing, in movies Americans are always smarter than indians, Germans etc. You might reflect on whether this corresponds to reality...
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 10:43 · Score: 0

And no mention in the posting about how it further allows government sponsored control?
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by Gible · 2010-12-30 11:18 · Score: 1

Our government and corporations stood idly by while USA infiltrated our military, government and corporate networks, commited blatant acts of corporate espionage, placed unfair regulations on foreign companies operations within their country, pulled blatant protectionist laws to stifle competition and threw trade embargos left and right.
But nothing was done because USA was the largest emerging economy on the planet and no one could afford to pass up a piece of that pie.
There...fixed that for you.

--
~/ One man's opinions is a lifetime of pain. /~
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by EdIII · 2010-12-30 11:20 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with competition.
Any foreign business that wishes to compete in China in any space that remotely has to do with communications must tow the party line. This is about control of information, and not about control of profits.
If Skype agreed tomorrow to create a separate network for China, with all of its hardware on Chinese soil, and Chinese operators able to perform real time intercepts and logging of communication going though Skype, you would see Skype become the #1 communication tool in China.
I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly. However, I also strongly believe that we should not be competing in China at all. Why is this kind of Orwellian level of control over Chinese communication considered acceptable, but unacceptable on US soil?
It's double standard, and you're almost right. We are so weak, poor, and greedy, that we allow politicians and corporations to sell us out literally and forfeit our integrity and principles so that the few people at the top (Walmart being the best example) can make billions.
We're poor, "we" being We The People. However, there are a bunch of people that have grown insanely rich from China.
We should actually have some freaking integrity and not allow companies to perform actions that we would consider unethical here. Seriously, we put men away in prison here for ass raping little boys in Thailand on their pleasure trips, but do nothing to corporations that would be complicit in human rights violations and atrocities elsewhere.
Re:Shows how badly China owns us by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 11:53 · Score: 0

Our government and corporations stand idly by while US infiltrates our military, government and corporate networks, commits blatant acts of corporate espionage, places unfair regulations on foreign companies operations within their country and now pulls blatant protectionist laws to stifle competition.
Oh wait...

Ah China.... They have finally grown up by modmans2ndcoming · 2010-12-30 07:14 · Score: 1

It is so wonderful to see them grow from Communism to Fascism in such a short preiod of time. .... It warms my heart.

Re:Ah China.... They have finally grown up by ClaraBow · 2010-12-30 07:21 · Score: 1

Very insightful! Best comment I've read in weeks!
Re:Ah China.... They have finally grown up by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-12-30 07:51 · Score: 1

Pretty much the only thing it takes to move from statist communism (i.e. any form of Marxism) to fascism is to allow private property - as that is the only major difference between the two. In that sense, China has been there a long time ago.
Re:Ah China.... They have finally grown up by hedwards · 2010-12-30 08:16 · Score: 1

There has never been a communist state in the history of the world. They all had at least 2 classes and in no case did the workers really control the means of production and the wealth that it generates.
Re:Ah China.... They have finally grown up by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-12-30 08:29 · Score: 1

Well, of course there wasn't ever a communist state, because communism is supposed to be a classless and stateless society. Colloquially, we call "communist" those states which declared building a communist society (going through an intermediate socialist stage) as their ultimate goal. In reality, of course, we really mean "Marxist socialist".
Now as far as that goes... Soviet Russia in its early years was a workers' democracy - it was run by the councils, and those councils were democratically elected. So I would argue that it was really and truly a Marxist socialist state.
Re:Ah China.... They have finally grown up by frank_adrian314159 · 2010-12-30 08:53 · Score: 1

Pretty much the only thing it takes to move from statist communism (i.e. any form of Marxism) to fascism is to allow private property - as that is the only major difference between the two.
What!? According to right-wingers, economic freedom breeds political freedom. That's one of the reasons why "globalism is a good thing (TM)". The Chinese must not be doing it right!

--
That is all.
Re:Ah China.... They have finally grown up by modmans2ndcoming · 2011-01-03 11:00 · Score: 1

If only Lenin had lived longer or Trotsky beaten Stalin in the power grab.
Re:Ah China.... They have finally grown up by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-01-03 11:14 · Score: 1

Not really. Soviet workers' democracy was a classic example of an oppressive tyranny of the majority, brutally repressing the dissenting minorities. It was Lenin who created VChK, after all, and gave it power to crack down on political dissent - hence Red Terror. And Trotsky never disagreed on that, either. His problem wasn't with applying terror in general, but only with applying it against himself and his followers. So I'm not particularly fond of either guy.
In the grand scheme of things, I'm not even sure if Trotsky in power would be ultimately better. He would have likely plunged the fledging Soviet state in a war against the world, hoping to trigger more revolutions. But it doesn't work that way - and Soviet Russia would get steamrolled by capitalist European states fairly quick. It would probably also boost fascism and Nazism even further. And ultimately, there would be no industrialized USSR to face the Nazis when they come out and proclaim their intent to rule the world - and who else would be able to take on them then?
Ironically, it may well be that Stalin's brutality to his own nation was what saved Europe from being ruled by the Third Reich...

Isn't it time? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:19 · Score: 0

Isn't it time that the rest of the world gives China (and everyone else like them) a "last chance" with a deadline, then cuts their backwater, protectionist, dipshit country off from everything?

If they change, great! If not, it's their loss. It has to be made their loss or they'll continue to abuse their people and everyone else in the world. You don't negotiate with abusers. You lay down the law. And if they don't want to play by everyone else's law, then they pay the consequences to everyone else.

See also: what's happening to North Korea. NK is internationally irrelevant except for pure entertainment value. I doubt the Chinese would be satisfied with that role.

Re:Isn't it time? by nedlohs · 2010-12-30 07:41 · Score: 1

1. They have a veto on the security council.
2. They make all the stuff the US uses, so five minutes later you have riots in the US because TVs cost $25,000.
3. There are many countries that like them.
Re:Isn't it time? by GameboyRMH · 2010-12-30 07:52 · Score: 1

HAHAHAHA
Yeah let's see the US "lay down the law" and cut itself off from its cheap goods, cheap labor, waste dumping grounds, financial backers, and oil. This should be entertaining. It'll be like an amusement park sealing itself off from the outside world.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

GOOD by commodore64_love · 2010-12-30 07:22 · Score: 0, Troll

Those filthy corporations are no good. The government should operate a "single payer" voice-over-IP company that has no profit motive and is highly efficient, to ensure EVERYONE has phone service. We can trust the government to provide superior service to those no-good corporations and their greedy-greed-greedy selves.
(cough)
Woah. For a second there I was possessed by the spirit of Rachel Maddow. ;-)

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:GOOD by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2010-12-30 08:05 · Score: 1

Actually, making the last mile a local utility has a lot to recommend it - no locked in monopoly, easier entry for competitors, and better services for consumers. You can also conceivably run servers at home without jumping through insane hoops. Comcast et al. would still exist as service providers of various stripes.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:GOOD by clone52431 · 2010-12-30 08:45 · Score: 1

Well, one does have to read it pretty much all the way through in order to figure out that it’s not meant to be taken literally. That’s asking a lot of some mods.

--
Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
Re:GOOD by commodore64_love · 2010-12-30 12:33 · Score: 0

Those filthy corporations are no good. The government should operate a "single payer" voice-over-IP company that has no profit motive and is highly efficient.... (cough) Woah. For a second there I was possessed by the spirit of Rachel Maddow. ;-)
One of the most insightful and funny posts here. Naturally, it is modded Troll.
Thank you sir. People can't handle the truth, so instead they seek to silence it. The moderation system is being used for Censorship of ideas, instead of its original intent.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Two bad tastes that taste awful together by Drakkenmensch · 2010-12-30 07:23 · Score: 1

who said that monopolistic corporate greed and paranoid government spying on citizens had to be mutually exclusive?

Profit motive? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:34 · Score: 0

I don't know much about China and their telcomm industry but not much from China seems to be about corporate profits. It is more about state control and monitoring.

Re:Profit motive? by joh · 2010-12-30 08:03 · Score: 1

It's both. China is since quite some time now a capitalist's wet dream with some people getting filthy rich. It's also a state wishing for control and monitoring. Actually both companies and politicians from the west stare at China with naked envy.

Re:Protect state-owned biz by outlawing competitio by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:42 · Score: 0

"free trade" is just another term for "corruption and oligarchy", i.e. pretty much the definition of the Chinese system. So yeah, of course they love China.

People will use it anyway by euyis · 2010-12-30 07:42 · Score: 1

No government is stupid enough to throw someone into jail just because he made some calls through some cheaper operator which was only recently declared illegal in some obscure announcement.

Re:People will use it anyway by BeShaMo · 2010-12-30 10:05 · Score: 1

Well, lucky then that the Chinese possess an excellent infrastructure for blocking services that they don't like, nobody will ever have to be thrown into jail.
Re:People will use it anyway by ewok85 · 2010-12-30 21:14 · Score: 1

What do you think fines are for?

we chinese are no stranger to greedy gov officials by wan9xu · 2010-12-30 07:45 · Score: 1

but even then i'm shocked by the blatant attempt at money grabbing in this.

reminds me of a recent (chinese) movie called "let the bullets fly". there's a scene very fitting to this news. the head of a bandit camp chides his men, who just raped a woman in front of her husband: "even i would put out the lights when i do this!" the chinese government didn't feel the need.

Don't shout by Wowsers · 2010-12-30 07:45 · Score: 1

With no VoIP, will everyone have to play Chinese Whispers?

--
Take Nobody's Word For It.

Capitalistic indeed... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 07:58 · Score: 0

(Quoting the summary)

seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits

Try the Chinese government's profits. I remain absolutely shocked that the common man still doesn't view government as the profit-driven business it is, after thousands of years of centralized power. The key difference between government and private business is that (1) government holds the special right to employ coercion as its business model, and (2) government never admits that its primary objective is profit.

Never listen to what goverment says; instead, simply observe what they do. Behind every claim of "for the country" is a very rich man laughing all the way to the bank.

Re:Capitalistic indeed... by pclminion · 2010-12-30 08:26 · Score: 1

The primary objective is NEVER profit. There is no point in investing energy and time to acquire money and then never spend it on anything. It's what the money is used for that's interesting.
Re:Capitalistic indeed... by Grishnakh · 2010-12-30 09:11 · Score: 1

You forgot #3 (which doesn't apply to China, but does to western countries): (3) government is ultimately accountable to the People, who have an election periodically to enforce this accountability and remove government members they feel are not working in their interests.
Of course, elections don't help if your citizens are easily-duped morons like Americans and the system is rigged to prevent outsiders from getting into the political system and the people are too stupid to tell the difference, but in other countries (esp. smaller ones with very high education rates) it seems to work pretty well.

"Technically Illegal" by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 08:06 · Score: 0

The best kind of illegal.

Drunken notion by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 08:09 · Score: 0

Via VPN (and too lazy to cover my tracks) :
I ask - where is my free speech? This is not the Internet I was promised.
As I've been in China - it has more freedoms for a good capitalist than in western world. So why bother in e.g. USA while you can do stuff in China with 1/100th price?

QA you say? China has that covered. Top quality - mass production. Problem; change 'em... certifications covered, period. Bug fixing was a bit boring anyway.
Oh - the churn might be a problem... They'll ask more, not long. Cities need food. All need food, not found from these plains.

And why the hell would Chinese megaoperators give their marketshare to Skype? When they have govt' backing...? Guess that would bring a serious drop in general chinese output, at least in domestic market.
And that would drop figures...

Re:Protect state-owned biz by outlawing competitio by hedwards · 2010-12-30 08:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because free trade isn't about free trade so much as it is a tool with which the rich can bludgeon the poor into working for less than their labor is worth.

This is exactly the sort of situation that Marx was concerned by. The Bourgeoisie forcing the Proletariat to compete with each other to suppress wages so that the Bourgeoisie could have more money.

either that or.... by russ1337 · 2010-12-30 08:25 · Score: 1

widely seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits

either that or one of the Chinese ruling party had a bad experience on chatroulette.

Re:Protect state-owned biz by outlawing competitio by clarkkent09 · 2010-12-30 08:32 · Score: 1

China is still the darling of all the so-called "free trade" advocates.

Ok, can you provide some examples of free trade advocates who consider China their darling?

--
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.

Uh by jimmerz28 · 2010-12-30 08:38 · Score: 1

Soon there won't be anything legal in China other than dying.

I think that happened many decades ago by Colin+Smith · 2010-12-30 08:47 · Score: 1

Only the names didn't change.

--
Deleted

Gilded Age was for wusses. by danaris · 2010-12-30 08:59 · Score: 1

Of course, it's just like a Gilded Age America, today!

You realize, of course, that America, today, is in a state of more unbalanced wealth distribution than the Gilded Age robber barons could even have dreamt of?

Dan Aris

--
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.

Re:Gilded Age was for wusses. by GameboyRMH · 2010-12-30 09:13 · Score: 1

I haven't compared the numbers but it wouldn't surprise me one bit. At least the working conditions and pay are better for the average Joes.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Raid's cancelled... by babywhiz · 2010-12-30 09:11 · Score: 0

No Vent for Joo!

From Socialism to Fascism? by OrangeTide · 2010-12-30 09:26 · Score: 1

Mussolini would be proud of how far China has come!

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire

Technically Illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 09:28 · Score: 0

The BEST kind of Illegal.

my prediction by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 09:30 · Score: 0

i foresee lots of FMS and murmur installs in china

ALL YOUR PROTOCOL BERONG TO ....oh by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 09:37 · Score: 0

Big mistake, Chinamen. Enjoy your cruddy old POTS.

Could not care less what China is doing by Tanuki64 · 2010-12-30 09:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Western countries are not better. Wait a few years and most of the internet restrictions will be implemented here, too. The excuses will be different and of course it will be a total different thing since were are the good by definition.

Re:Could not care less what China is doing by koolfy · 2010-12-30 10:37 · Score: 3, Informative

Wait a few years and most of the internet restrictions will be implemented here, too.
I assume you don't live in the US or in France or in Germany or in Italy or in half of Europe.

If you were, you'd know that it has begun a few years ago, and for some countries, we're getting really close.

Just look at laquadrature.net 's articles about French HADOPI and LOPPSI laws, that go even further than China in internet control and censorship, in most western countries it's also illegal to use VoIP with a GPRS/EDGE/3G/whatever data connection, too bad if it's the one you use for your home's internet. (how they advertise you to do nowadays)

The internet is in danger, everywhere. Open your eyes and you'll see that we're almost already fucked.

--
Segmentation Fault in "Life, Universe and Everything" at line 42. Don't Panic.

It's probably the selfishness of one man. by Jimbookis · 2010-12-30 10:00 · Score: 1

Like the Google saga started when one Chinese upper echelon member of the Communist Party found a search on his name revealed unsavoury information and declared war on Google - another member may have found their child using VoIP and decided this discount voice comms thingy wasn't going to threaten his personal 80% stake in China Telecom.

This isn't about profit by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 10:31 · Score: 0

Are you kidding me? This has nothing to do with profit. Remember, China is a communist nation, the government can take control of anything they want. This is entirely about restricting private communications, period. The fact that someone would tie it to profit seems like a way to whitewash communist tactics by attributing a negative action with a typical capitalist narrative. Not a communist apologist are you?

Re:Protect state-owned biz by outlawing competitio by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 10:31 · Score: 0

airbus

Those dirty... commies? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · 2010-12-30 10:55 · Score: 1

According to the article, "the decision is expected to make Skype, UUCall and other similar services unavailable in China", and is widely seen as a way to protect the traditional telecom operators' profits

So how's that Communism thing working out for you guys? Are we beginning to figure out that all economic systems are eventually distorted and manipulated to serve the cause of greater government power?

political views dont matter anymore, keep up! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 10:56 · Score: 0

hehe, doesnt matter what political view your country follows. doesnt matter what is its main religion choice. communists, socialists, fascists even capitalism it doesnt matter they're all irrelevant.

the true master of the world is money, we live in a money-ism and not a single country is free from it. its so sad really, good thing people are starting to get more educated about the real nature of things and wont be long before it all collapses either because the system is flawed or because people get sick of it in mass.

Skype's days are numbered anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 11:43 · Score: 0

Just wait a few months until the IPv4 address space is exhausted. Then, IPv6 will be rolled out and before long a Chinese outfit will start churning out ridiculously cheap P2P/WiFi/SIP/IPv6 phones. No more need for intermediaries. Just speed dial the other party's IPv6 address and start talking.

And even if the hardware phones don't become commonplace, anybody with a computer will be a "yum install" away from a software equivalent.

Who freaking cares? by BlueBoxSW.com · 2010-12-30 12:09 · Score: 1

Seriously.

Re:Protect state-owned biz by outlawing competitio by the_one(2) · 2010-12-30 14:14 · Score: 1

Wow! I never thought I'd see the day when a comment that is so "anti-capitalistic" get modded +5 on slashdot!

business communitty will not let this stand by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 14:45 · Score: 0

I know so many chinese businesses who are dependent on skype for communicating with foreign clients. all the people you see on alibaba as well as larger companies all deal through skype when working with customers and potential buyers.

This will have a very negative reception from the business community, which in china thankfully is quite strong..

Does not apply to Skype etc. by xnpu · 2010-12-30 15:25 · Score: 1

The law only covers Phone-Phone and PC-Phone calls. PC-PC and Phone-PC is not affected or arguably a grey area at most.

Compare to USPS First Class Mail by tepples · 2010-12-30 18:55 · Score: 1

What China is doing here is actually making the free competition illegal to favor the government approved telecom.

But is it really much different from the United States' ban on private competition to USPS First Class Mail?

clone I see you have 2 user accounts here? How?? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 19:37 · Score: 0

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34718828 and from you posts history I see there are actually 2 clones here yours clone52431 (1805862) and yours clone53421 (1310749)

clone I see you have 2 user accounts here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 19:39 · Score: 0

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1927208&cid=34718828 and from you posts history I see there are actually 2 clones here yours clone52431 (1805862) and yours clone53421 (1310749). Smells of dishonest trollery to me.

So Chinese students wlll leave more $$ overseas! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-30 21:02 · Score: 0

Lots of Chinese friends - who happen to be students, in AU & elsewhere (outside of China) - use Skype to stay in-touch with family & friends, in China.

Can we now expect them to dip into their savings and/or earnings to pay for phone calls home?

Or is it cheaper to ring overseas from China...?

PS Some of those students use mobile phones with Skype built-in (eg, the SkypePhone, on the 3 network) or install apps into their Symbion or other systemed mobiles that implement Skype there.

Does the law affect them?

If so, some might have their Sony PSP 3000'a confiscated... since it, too, has Skype implemented in firmware. :-/

Sigh... by ewok85 · 2010-12-30 21:17 · Score: 1

When I go to China I turn on the VPN on my iPhone and tether to my laptop, skype, facebook and twitter away :P

Re:So Chinese students wlll leave more $$ overseas by Ash-Fox · 2010-12-30 21:21 · Score: 1

PS Some of those students use mobile phones with Skype built-in (eg, the SkypePhone, on the 3 network) or install apps into their Symbion or other systemed mobiles that implement Skype there.

Three isn't a provider in China and the 3skypephone uses the phone provider's network to route calls through Skype. If the provider doesn't support Skype's call routing via special numbers, it doesn't work.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

What a conicidence. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 00:39 · Score: 0

That is what the US did to other countries (Latin American ones specially) for decades.

And if those measures were not enough then countries were invaded or democratically elected governments were removed by proxy.

I hope you enjoy this very light version of your own soup.

Re:clone I see you have 2 user accounts here? How? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-12-31 05:20 · Score: 0

clone I see you have 2 user accounts here? How??

How? Apparently Slashdot doesn’t keep anyone from registering a name similar to mine. Who’d a thunk?

Certainly YOU ought to know how this website works. After all, you have no fewer than THREE accounts (in addition to the hundreds of Anonymous Coward posts you make)... but maybe you can tell me why you need three accounts?
http://slashdot.org/~kingsjokers
http://slashdot.org/~MEK_LoveBug
http://slashdot.org/~the+kings+jokwers

(And don’t even bother denying it.)

Slashdot Mirror

VoIP Now Technically Illegal In China

181 comments