Indian Minister Says Telecom Companies Should Only Charge For Data

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Indian Minister Says Telecom Companies Should Only Charge For Data

Posted by timothy on Sunday September 30, 2012 @03:39AM from the remember-that-voice-is-data dept.

bhagwad writes "In the US, telecom carriers are trying their best to hold on to depleting voice revenues. Over in India, the telecom minister urged carriers to stop charging for voice calls and derive all their revenues only from data plans. Is this kind of model sustainable, where voice becomes an outmoded and free technology, and carriers turn entirely into dumb pipes which have no control over what passes over them? This is a step forward and hopefully will make Internet service more like a utility."

177 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

subsidize phone calls by rgbrenner · 2012-09-30 03:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

so you want to subsidize phone calls by overcharging on data...
how is that an improvement?
1. Re:subsidize phone calls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 03:47 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  47% of the population gets a FREE (as in you pay for it) ObamaPhone. Why should they care what it actually costs?
2. Re:subsidize phone calls by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-09-30 03:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think he's probably saying that voice and text messages are hugely overpriced. I don't know about voice but SMSes certainly are.
3. Re:subsidize phone calls by AliasMarlowe · 2012-09-30 03:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  so you want to subsidize phone calls by overcharging on data...
  how is that an improvement?
  The actual amount of data transfer which a voice call is "deemed" to have involved might be a surprise to the average customer.
  Yes, we all know your voice will be compressed to at best a barely tolerable audio content. But the data charge might be for full duplex 320kbps, if you're lucky. If you're unlucky, they'll charge your full theoretical bandwidth times the duration of the call (with a theoretically 5Mbps link, a 2 minute call would appear as 75 MB, and 1GB would be less than 27 minutes).
  
  --
  Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
4. Re:subsidize phone calls by jd2112 · 2012-09-30 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  so you want to subsidize phone calls by overcharging on data...
  how is that an improvement?
  New phone model: 2GB cap at double the current data rate and voice calls are all routed through Skype.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
5. Re:subsidize phone calls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 04:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You get all you can eat data for 15 pounds a month in the UK on Three. They still charge for calls, but you can Skype to your hearts content, until the cows come home (no fair use policy, no clause to let them introduce one later if they change their minds). Not sure how big their customer base is though... but it doesn't seem to scare the rest of the carriers into providing similar services.
  If the Indians get their way and say "everything is data" and start charging a flat monthly fee and only capping your top speed (i.e. you get less top speed for less money, should you be skint), only the greedy shareholders would have something to moan about.
6. Re:subsidize phone calls by ozmanjusri · 2012-09-30 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  voice calls are all routed through Skype
  They're already routed through VOIP.
  
  --
  "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
7. Re:subsidize phone calls by timeOday · 2012-09-30 04:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  so you want to subsidize phone calls by overcharging on data...
  
  You assume voice and data are ultimately different things. If providers simply charged for data (which may or may not happen be voice), and competed on $/megabyte, then making a phonecall would be vanishingly cheap, and texts even moreso.
  I realize I just said something different than the Indian telecomm minister, who things voice should be completely free. But I think simply dropping the mostly mental distinction between voice and data accomplishes almost the same thing and makes more sense.
8. Re:subsidize phone calls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 04:23 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/basics/how-do-i-get-a-free-phone
9. Re:subsidize phone calls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 04:28 · Score: 0
  
  Phone calls ARE data (and always have been).They are now (in the digital age) still charged separately in an anachronistic way.
10. Re:subsidize phone calls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 04:43 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Not if they have a modern network, and are honest. Modern networks are completely ip on the inside. Price to customer pr megabyte of voice traffic is approximately 100x that of the same volume on a data plan.
  But note that carriers production cost on data is very high nowadays, due to very large build costs. Don't know about India, but in western networks data usage have been growing by about 80-90% year-over-year the last few years - that is, exponentially. Revenue is only increasing in the low double digits, far lower than cost. Equipment cost is also falling, but not quickly enough. In the long run this is unsustainable. That's the reason for the more restrictive data plans and price hikes you have been seing the last few years. For many carriers, voice is susidizing data right now.
  Source: I'm technical management at a large telco.
11. Re:subsidize phone calls by jd2112 · 2012-09-30 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  voice calls are all routed through Skype
  They're already routed through VOIP.
  Perhaps, but they are currently billed against voice minutes separate from data. I'm saying a "data only" plan would both be more expensive than current data plans but you would get to pay for voice calls out of your data plan as well.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
12. Re:subsidize phone calls by craigminah · 2012-09-30 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Good info. Since voice is just time sensitive data it makes sense to only charge for data so long as you can estimate minutes remaining based on data usage before you go over your monthly data limits (e.g. if I have 100MB remaining until I go over, how many minutes is that).
13. Re:subsidize phone calls by davester666 · 2012-09-30 05:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Two things will happen:
  1) New phones will be changed so that both voice and SMS's are sent over the data channel
  2) Suddenly, every carrier will be all over HD Voice. Who needs compression, you need to be able to clearly hear the other party and they need to clearly hear you!
  Carriers have the knowledge and experience to game whatever system politicians can come up with, even if the carrier's don't millions of dollars helping to craft new rules/regulations.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
14. Re:subsidize phone calls by hairyfeet · 2012-09-30 05:54 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Hell I recently read an article (sorry I didn't think to save the bookmark) that MSFT was doomed in the mobile space precisely because the carriers don't want competition from Skype and are punishing MSFT for buying it by refusing to give WinPhone the same push and deals they do with the Droid phones. Considering how badly they screw you on voice and data? Certainly sounds believable to me.
  This is why the whole "pushing smartphones" frankly scares the living hell out of me, AT&T in my area has pretty much stopped bothering to add so much as a single foot or Mbps to their DSL offerings and are instead pushing cell phones where they can make insane profits and the cableco has decided to simply gouge the customers they have instead of adding more customers and running lines. Imagine a world where you can't get on the net except with a smartphone with no tether ability? Makes the carriers happy, they can gouge away, makes the content owners happy, you won't have enough bandwidth to do anything that would piss them off, but it would royally suck for the users as you'd be stuck on these crappy little screens with no hope of getting anything better.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
15. Re:subsidize phone calls by snakeplissken · 2012-09-30 05:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  47% of the population gets a FREE (as in you pay for it) ObamaPhone
  actually it's a reaganphone if anything, since the scheme that provides them was introduced under his regime...
  i guess that makes reagan a dirty socialist? :)
  snake
16. Re:subsidize phone calls by epSos-de · 2012-09-30 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Voice calls are also data, it just gets paid by minute instead. Get the idea ?
  
  --
  ~ Best man at your service.
17. Re:subsidize phone calls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  Over charging for voice and sending it down a cheap data pipe is better its like email nothing amount of data but being charged a crazy price.
  On you system they might decide the can get for all data what they do for voice and phone. 5 gigs of voice and email is enough to last my life time.
  30 bucks worth.
18. Re:subsidize phone calls by abhi2012 · 2012-09-30 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Unlike charging a huge amount by the minute and virtually no "unlimited" packs, the government can shift to unlimited packs and charges on mobile data like we have here in the US.
19. Re:subsidize phone calls by camperdave · 2012-09-30 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  No. The conversion of voice to data is a fairly recent thing, as far as the telephone network is concerned; dating back only to the 1960s. For the first 100 years, everything was analog. Even today, analog is used for the "last mile" connection.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
20. Re:subsidize phone calls by sjames · 2012-09-30 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  ...and are honest
  Well, so much for that then!
21. Re:subsidize phone calls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  False argument, you are confusing reality with market philosophy. When the price of a product is arbitrarily set by simple supply/demand or through collusion, that is a function of belief. What people are WILLING to pay... there is no precise calculation for desire :P
  Back to your statement, the price being gauged for simple data transfers would be quite accurately described as insane by, say, a baker... So having companies charge for simply data (which is all that phone calls are nowadays... how you separate the two into separate commodities is quaint) would eliminate the price fixing. Pay $5 for the phone app, voila you have computing device = you have phone.
  How the accounting of our communal services goes down isn't all that important, except for eliminating the inefficiency (secret econ word for corruption).
22. Re:subsidize phone calls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  I get free texts, so I use a program to encode my data as SMS messages. You can't beat free.
23. Re:subsidize phone calls by rew · 2012-09-30 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know if they are actually going to do it this way, but a voice call also causes data to be transferred back and forth to/from the phone.
  So by just charging for the data, people get more choices: Chose a lower bitrate and pay less. Send an SMS for incredibly little, etc etc. Download a HQ video from Youtube: Pay a lot.
24. Re:subsidize phone calls by mspohr · 2012-09-30 08:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I assume you are being cynical (with good cause).
  However, Skype calls (better quality than standard voice channels) actually use about 0.5 MByte of data per minute.
  Where I am now (traveling in a developing country), they charge about US$0.14 per megabyte (2 minute call) and the same per minute for local calls. Of course, with Skype, you can call anywhere for the same cost so yes, data calls are cheaper.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
25. Re:subsidize phone calls by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-09-30 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  I can live with that. The nice thing without carriers just pushing bits around for a flat fee is that you don't have to use their voice service.
26. Re:subsidize phone calls by SpzToid · 2012-09-30 09:34 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Here is an editorial that works to explain the carriers' boycott against Skype, (and vis-à-vis Microsoft's ownership, along with Nokia's position).
  http://communities-dominate.blogs.com/brands/2011/09/why-do-carriers-hate-skype-let-me-count-the-ways.html
  
  --
  You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
27. Re:subsidize phone calls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 11:29 · Score: 0
  
  Where I am now (traveling in a developing country), they charge about US$0.14 per megabyte
  Note that the requirements for a "data" connection are much weaker than for a "voice" connection. For voice, you'll need latency guarantees. For arbitrary data, you don't.
28. Re:subsidize phone calls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 12:54 · Score: 0
  
  You assume voice and data are ultimately different things.
  Yes, they are (at least today and for quite some time going forward).
  When I make a voice call, I get a 64 kb/sec guaranteed, high-quality, low-latency connection from end-to-end.
  When I send the same information with a data connection, I get no guaranty of latency or quality. My ISP might be able to provide QoS when the data stays on their network, but with the next hop all bets are off. That being said, the network is often good enough, which is why voip is so popular.
29. Re:subsidize phone calls by mspohr · 2012-09-30 14:10 · Score: 1
  
  This country is group of islands and all Internet comes through satellite links.
  Skype tells me the roundtrip is 800 ms which is huge.
  There is a lag in the conversation but the voice quality is excellent.
  I can't imagine it could get much worse than the conditions here and these are quite usable.
  
  --
  I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
30. Re:subsidize phone calls by timeOday · 2012-09-30 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  "When I make a voice call, I get a 64 kb/sec guaranteed, high-quality, low-latency connection from end-to-end."
  I defy you to rigorously define "guaranteed," "high-quality," and/or "low-latency" in that sentence.
31. Re:subsidize phone calls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 14:30 · Score: 0
  
  Voice and data are not the same.
  There is a fee for having a DID number (incoming telephone number) that the carrier has to pay.
  There is a cost to the central office lines required for interchange for local calls.
  There is a cast to the carrier for long distance for anyone out of the local area.
  It's not the same as Internet data which is location free.
32. Re:subsidize phone calls by Cigarra · 2012-10-01 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  ...I recently read an article (sorry I didn't think to save the bookmark)...
  Seriously? If you remember just a single phrase (four or five words together), let alone the title of the article, Google will "remember" the article for you. Are you really saying you can't recolect a single phrase from it?
  
  --
  I don't have a sig.
33. Re:subsidize phone calls by Hillgiant · 2012-10-01 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  47% of all statistics are made up.
  
  --
  -
34. Re:subsidize phone calls by FireFury03 · 2012-10-01 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  I think he's probably saying that voice and text messages are hugely overpriced. I don't know about voice but SMSes certainly are.
  Are voice calls and SMS messages *really* overpriced when people continue to use them despite there being cheaper alternatives?
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
35. Re:subsidize phone calls by eth1 · 2012-10-01 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  so you want to subsidize phone calls by overcharging on data...
  how is that an improvement?
  No, I want data only, with two classes of service available. Let me buy enough kbps of guaranteed/low latency bandwidth to get one VOIP call through, and as much bulk bandwidth as I feel like paying for.
36. Re:subsidize phone calls by hairyfeet · 2012-10-01 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Dude, know how many tech articles I read in a week? I remember the CONCEPTS and ideas, I don't have a damned clue how the writer wrote the phrasing. Frankly I never have to remember anyway, as the guy above you helpfully provided the link for me and since my Google Fu does sucketh that is just as well.
  But this is why I probably have over a thousand bookmarks now, all compiled into various categories, because if its anything I think I'll ever want to read again or cite I pretty much have to bookmark or I'll never find it again.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
37. Re:subsidize phone calls by DocSavage64109 · 2012-10-01 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Are voice calls and SMS messages *really* overpriced when people continue to use them despite there being cheaper alternatives?
  When I had AT&T, my friends with free texting pre-paid plans would text me all the time and AT&T would charge 25 cents for each and every one sent or received.
38. Re:subsidize phone calls by WhiteDragon · 2012-10-01 07:02 · Score: 1
  
  replying to undo accidental redundant moderation.
  
  --
  Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
39. Re:subsidize phone calls by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 11:58 · Score: 0
  
  In Australia, we have a company called Amaysim. They do mobile phone plans
  from 9 cents/minute and sms'es for 9 cents. I'm in the "Business" of recommending
  them to people who want to save money on their Mobile bills. My 9 cents worth.
40. Re:subsidize phone calls by FireFury03 · 2012-10-01 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  When I had AT&T, my friends with free texting pre-paid plans would text me all the time and AT&T would charge 25 cents for each and every one sent or received.
  So your choice seems obvious. Either:
  1. Change to an MNO with a less fucked up pricing model (WTF? Charging for received SMS messages? I don't even get that when I'm roaming)
  or
  2. Tell AT&T to block all SMS messages and use a different service (e.g. XMPP)
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
41. Re:subsidize phone calls by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  Except this is not what is being suggested. VOIP is basically illegal in India (though the regulations are being changed for Mukesh Ambani's LTE service over which he wants to allow voice, which under the current legal framework he can't, so... being a multi-billionaire and whatnot, he's having the law changed).
  What is being suggested is that calling goes down from it's current rates of 30-80 paise (that's 0.3 to 0.8 rupees**) per minute - although, most plans are pay per second now, with most operators charging 1.2 paise per second - yes, Indians really are that cheap - to zero, and the companies should only make their revenue from charging for data.
  Since only a small percentage of people actually use (or are able to use) data on their phones, two things could happen if this goes ahead:
  1. Minimum monthly plans are introduced as mandatory which will include data to cover the cost of the minutes.
  2. Data prices will go up and become even more convoluted and confusing than they already are. Currently 1GB at 3G speeds costs something like Rs250-300 though if you buy a lot that could potentially go down to as low as Rs100/GB, whereas on 2G a typical rate is Rs98 for 2GB of data. I don't get it either, but they do price differently for 2G/3G data. Probably because 2G is completely unusable - can barely even receive emails on 2G.
  While I'm sure the scheme is intended to bring cellular service to even more of India's poor, both of these would potentially bring the cost of owning a mobile up and thus actually taking the service out of the hands of the people for whom the scheme is intended to benefit - as is so often the case here. Plus, all the major telcos are so heavily in debt (ESPECIALLY the government telcos) they can't really afford to do this anyway, in my opinion.
  (**current exchange rate 1 rupee = US$0.019, so basically, calls cost all of around 1.6 cents a minute here).
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
42. Re:subsidize phone calls by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  Modern network: Kinda. We only got 3G here in 2010.
  Honest: No.
  Completely IP on the inside: mmmmm... to a point, but not as much as you might think. The legal framework actually introduces a lot of technical inefficiencies because streams have to be converted multiple times to get from A to B and it's led to, frankly, shit quality. Can't even keep a stable call in some parts of Mumbai (where I live).
  Build costs: Cheaper than some countries.
  Spectrum: Expensive, but considering the size of the audience, probably justified.
  ARPU: Only about US$4 according to some companies.
  Unsustainable: Definitely.
  The other thing is that people still expect "unlimited" data on 3G, so what so often happens is people buy x amount of gigabytes and then they get reduced in speed to 128k or something thereafter - but even at 128k with the kind of population densities we're talking about the networks are choked all the time.
  Source: In the industry, in India... just not in cellular services. Not even remotely interested.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
43. Re:subsidize phone calls by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  I think you're misunderstanding. They're not going to be delivering voice as data. Voice and data remain separate as you know them, there's no VOIP implementation going on.
  It's that voice calling becomes free of charge and operators are only able to charge for data and other value added services. See http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154149&cid=41579425 for more.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
44. Re:subsidize phone calls by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  If the Indians get their way and say "everything is data" and start charging a flat monthly fee and only capping your top speed (i.e. you get less top speed for less money, should you be skint), only the greedy shareholders would have something to moan about.
  No no no. They won't change how voice is delivered. Remember, this is INDIA we're talking about. The vast majority of people are on domestically made phones that cost like, $10 or if they're really after a status symbol, the Nokia 1110 - that sort of thing. All they're saying is that voice calling will become free and data/value services would be the sources of revenue.
  http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154149&cid=41579425
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
45. Re:subsidize phone calls by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  No. http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154149&cid=41579425 and http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154149&cid=41579539
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
46. Re:subsidize phone calls by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  No VOIP in India yet (at least not with e.164 compliant phone numbers - you can do PC to PC and stuff but otherwise...)
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
Yet another bad idea by khallow · 2012-09-30 03:45 · Score: 1

And I imagine Mr. Sibal thinks that voice should be just as unreliable and as low priority as data services. After all, reporting a car accident with multiple injuries is just as important as delivering the latest cricket scores.
1. Re:Yet another bad idea by Animats · 2012-09-30 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  And I imagine Mr. Sibal thinks that voice should be just as unreliable and as low priority as data services.
  Cell phone to cell phone calls from Sprint to other carriers can have as much as a full second of round-trip delay. This is so long that the echo suppressors don't detect it as echo, which is really annoying.
2. Re:Yet another bad idea by Z34107 · 2012-09-30 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. VoIP is impossible, and clearly not how cell calls are routed right now.
  
  --
  DATABASE WOW WOW
3. Re:Yet another bad idea by unixisc · 2012-09-30 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Is Kapil Sibal already the most (in)famous Indian honcho on /.? Most here have read more about him than any other member of the government he's in - including his boss, the prime minister.
4. Re:Yet another bad idea by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  That's because he's the minister for technology and communications, ergo, somewhat related to the /. audience :)
  The PM and whatnot are just... well they don't even get in the news here as much as some of the other politicians. Parliament seems to be a competition for "who can stir the most shit this week".
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
Voice is data. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 03:46 · Score: 0

Same streaming music or video is data. Yes its sustainable, the only reason it's not like that now is because providers can charge more and 99% of consumers don't know any better.
1. Re:Voice IS data. by Netssansfrontieres · 2012-09-30 04:19 · Score: 2
  
  A rather silly over-simplification.
  Of course, voice is carried as data. However, it requires more than low latency - it requires that the latency be sustained as low. And it requires low error rates.
  The reasons are buried deep in human behaviors.
  Delays easily realizable in IP networks with error correction are perceptible to the listener. Then, however, they're not ignored (as they are in a video stream being re-aggregated for playing) but are heard by the listener as hesitation.
  The Q&A: "do you want to go out for dinner on Friday?" A: "yes" ... becomes "do you want to go out for dinner on Friday?" A: (slight pause) "yes".
  In human interaction, that silent pause is extra information.
  (Of course, the degradation of voice quality on mobile networks means that the Q&A leads to answers like "huh? what did you say?")
  There's a BIG difference between saying "voice is data" and the fact "voice is carried as data".
2. Re:Voice IS data. by fredprado · 2012-09-30 04:23 · Score: 2
  
  Considering the bandwidth voice data requires it is usually trivial to guarantee the needed quality especially in a system that has to be able to provide a reasonable service to a much wider bandwidth used by data connection nowadays.
  
  The overcharging of voice data has no real justification and that is why phone companies around the world are so hostile towards VOIP.
3. Re:Voice IS data. by jeffasselin · 2012-09-30 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  It might also make them update the codecs used for voice on cell phpnes and landlines. We've had the technology to drastically improve the quality of voice calls for years now.
  
  --
  If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
4. Re:Voice IS data. by KiloByte · 2012-09-30 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  How is that different from about any other interactive thing you might be doing over the network?
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
5. Re:Voice IS data. by Netssansfrontieres · 2012-09-30 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  I should have made more clear.
  I was talking about value to the customer / user.
  You're talking about costs. The incremental costs may become small (but they're not yet, see - for example - Gettys work on bufferbloat).
  Meanwhile, lots of folks buy Apple computers for 2x the price of a more powerful Windows machine because, well, perceived value. Apple has high margins. Perhaps, in your worldview, we should regulate Apple's prices and margins?
6. Re:Voice IS data. by fredprado · 2012-09-30 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, price is not necessarily dictated by cost, but I see nothing wrong when the government that conceded rights to a telecom company to operate in their territory set the rules in a way that changes that.
7. Re:Voice IS data. by fm6 · 2012-09-30 07:38 · Score: 2
  
  Voice is data.
  I pretty much agree with you, with a semi-important exception: most landlines are still analog. Of course, the connection becomes digital as soon as reaches the central office, though I'm old enough to remember when most connections analog all the way through.
  Doesn't refute the point you're making. Just a small nitpick.
8. Re:Voice IS data. by khallow · 2012-10-01 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Considering the bandwidth voice data requires it is usually trivial to guarantee the needed quality especially in a system that has to be able to provide a reasonable service to a much wider bandwidth used by data connection nowadays.
  
  The overcharging of voice data has no real justification and that is why phone companies around the world are so hostile towards VOIP.
  Well, there's a great business opportunity then. Stop gabbing and start eating the telecoms' lunches.
Oh well by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 03:47 · Score: 0

Here in Portugal I have been using a prepaid account where most voice calls are free if you have a data plan for your mobile phone. The problem is, by some advanced accounting magic and possibly some fraud, the money still magically disappeared in troves.
So yes, it's possible for a telecom company, as long as they continue to cheat and mislead their customers in the best way possible and make sure their plans are incomprehensible to anyone with an advanced degree in math.
If voice calls are free... by roc97007 · 2012-09-30 03:49 · Score: 3, Funny

...I'm digging that acoustic modem out of the closet. Whee! Free data. It may be too slow for pr0n, but fast enough for texting and email.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
1. Re:If voice calls are free... by wiggles · 2012-09-30 04:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think the idea is that bits are bits, and the voice should all be VOIP over your data connection, and you're charged just for the data which includes the voice.
  I've long been thinking that content and delivery need to be separated in the Cable TV industry, and voice and data should be consolidated under the Cellular system as well as POTS.
  The cable company or phone company or Google should provide a pipe to our house that we pay maintenance for, and TV channels, websites, VOIP, should all be purchased from separate companies.
  If everything is digital, we should be charged strictly for the bits that flow in and out of our house, not separately for different classifications of data.
2. Re:If voice calls are free... by roc97007 · 2012-09-30 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  > I think the idea is that bits are bits, and the voice should all be VOIP over your data connection, and you're charged just for the data which includes the voice.
  I didn't get that from the article, but ok. I'm sure that voice is VOIP after it hits the cell tower, but unless phones are redesigned, it's not that kind of data from the phone. On the other hand, it's been decades since I did communication engineering; it might be different now.
  > I've long been thinking that content and delivery need to be separated in the Cable TV industry, and voice and data should be consolidated under the Cellular system as well as POTS.
  I think the problem with consolidation is that it misses so many revenue opportunities. Take texting, for instance. Essentially free for the cellular providers, but the singular most expensive transportation method (per character) on earth.
  
  --
  Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
3. Re:If voice calls are free... by MrZilla · 2012-09-30 04:45 · Score: 2
  
  I didn't get that from the article, but ok. I'm sure that voice is VoIP after it hits the cell tower, but unless phones are redesigned, it's not that kind of data from the phone. On the other hand, it's been decades since I did communication engineering; it might be different now.
  No, you are correct. VoLTE (Voice over LTE) for the 4G networks is a pure VoIP type setup, but for UMTS and GSM systems, it works a bit differently. Of course, the actual data will still be carried in either IP packets or ATM cells, but the setup of the call is different.
  For UMTS systems (which I am most familiar with), all calls are divided into either the Packet Switched (PS) domain, or the Circuit Switched (CS) domain.
  The PS domain is normally "best effort", and is used for all data calls (including any VoIP client running on the UE), and works pretty much as you expect an IP network to. It is possible to set up connections with certain requirements on minimum and average bit rates, but in general, you get what is available, and your allocation can shift over time.
  The CS domain, on the other hand, behaves like the old telephony systems, and is primarily used for voice calls. When you set up your call, the resources needed to provide the requested sustained bit rates are allocated from your UE all the way to the receivers UE. If such resources can not be allocated, the call setup will be refused. If the resources are available, you should, theoretically, be able to keep your connection indefinitely, without quality degradation. In reality, of course, there are cases where your call will be dropped or reduce in quality (e.g. if the cell you are in is full, and someone makes an emergency call).
  
  --
  mov ax, 4c00h
  int 21h
4. Re:If voice calls are free... by jamesh · 2012-09-30 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  The Australian ISDN network used to charge high rates for voice calls, but even higher rates for data, so a market was created for ISDN modems that signaled to Telstra that the data calls they were making were actually voice.
  I believe Telstra's stand on this was "Don't do it. We may choose to use lossy compression on voice calls.", but I never heard of it actually happening.
In coming calls are free in India. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-09-30 03:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

According the the law, the phone companies can not charge for airtime of incoming calls. Most people use prepaid phones, with just enough money to keep the phone active. But they would not dial out any calls. Many very poor people use these phones. Street vegetable vendors, unofficial jitney taxis, servant maids, low paid gate security fellas. ...
And they have developed some social customs regarding "missed call etiquette". Typically it is understood that you never accept a call from certain classes of people, drivers, maids, delivery boys etc. They call, let it ring once, and they hang up. You return the call. Sometimes I have answered these calls and they would go, "Sir, why did you answer the call? I was giving you a missed call, sir". Usually I give them a few rupees to make amends.
Very typical conversation is:
"Mom, going to the dance class".
"OK, dear, do give me a missed call as soon as you get there"

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-09-30 03:55 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  BTW typical airtime charges for prepaid phones: 1 Rupee per minute for out going calls. Incoming calls are free. Incoming texts are free. Outgoing texts are 0.5 Rs per text. Data charges are typically 100 Rs for 2 GB. Consider 1 Rupee to be 2 cents in USA. International calls were 6 Rs per minute. But this trip they had a promotion and I got USA for 2 Rs per minute.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
2. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  I never understood why in some countries you have to pay to receive calls.
  Your calling me. Why should I have to pay?
  Same with sms. I understand from the service provider stand point.
  They get to charge everyone for things that are payed for by someone else.
3. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-09-30 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  They also have 3G USB dongles for netbooks and tablets. I was using my sister's account. Worked everywhere, without problems. Was able to use maps.google.co.in to find directions amazing even the local auto-rickshaw drivers. Never found out the plans and price of that service. It is considered a status symbol to own post-paid phones and get a monthly bill instead of using prepaid phones. This 3G USB dongle serviced by a company called Tata Photon was used by my sis. She would not tell me how much charges I raked up. "It is alright, foggetabout it". The newspaper ads seemed to suggest 4000 Rs for the dongle and account set up, and probably 5000 Rs a month for an unlimited data service. 200 Rs per GB as far as I could figure out.
  Even if I was willing to pay it myself, I could not have gotten account for myself. Lots of security and physical address verification before they give you an account. Police are worried about terrorists and rabble rousers using disposable accounts. Would not say their fears are totally off base.
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
4. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  This "missed call etiquete" is called a "beep" in Romania :) Much shorter word. "Give me a beep" is a common phrase. In English it could even be "Beep me".
  Now, this reminds me of something that happened there quite some time ago: a company introduced a pay-as-you-go plan that charged 1 eurocent per minute for outgoing calls in the evenings. They forgot to actually add the capacity to cope with that, so the network became useless in the evenings for everybody. I believe their network is much better now, but they're just in for the profit instead.
  So I wonder how India might fare.
5. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by kwark · 2012-09-30 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  There is no difference in used capacity of the network whether you are the caller or the callee. So why shouldn't both parties pay half the costs?
6. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-09-30 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Indians typically say "missed call" faster than you can say "beep" in Romania ;-)
  
  --
  sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
7. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by priyank_bolia · 2012-09-30 04:41 · Score: 2
  
  That is too costly, you need to change the plan :P. Most good plans are 1paisa/2second or 30 paisa/minute. And in practice, the 1paisa/2 second call are much cheaper, unless you are a girl or have to talk to your girl friend. So, the status call, like I am waiting outside the MacD, costs only 10 seconds or 5 paisa. 100 paisa = 1 rupee, 53 rupee = 1 USD. 1 USD = 5300 paisa = 10600 seconds = 3 hour talk time. And if you have to talk to your girl friend, you can always take free unlimited call plan on the friends circle.
8. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Ja'Achan · 2012-09-30 04:41 · Score: 2
  
  Because more often than not it's the caller who wants to contact you. Since they're the one in need of the product, why should someone have to pay the price?
  
  Especially for texts (which you can't, AFAIK, refuse), it's downright maddening to consider the idea that someone else could charge you for capacity you don't want to use.
9. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by fustakrakich · 2012-09-30 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Some places are trying to charge the caller for missed calls. I don't know if any of them succeeded yet, but it definitely would suck if they do.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
10. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  You can refuse to receive all text messages (I think), but that's generally not what you want to do either.
  At least with phone calls you can choose not to pick up.
11. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 04:47 · Score: 2
  
  There is no difference in used capacity of the network whether you are the caller or the callee.
  Same with snail-mail. But please, don't tell me you also have to pay half-a-stamp (or more) to receive mail in your mailbox?
  The GP point is exactly that: if you have something to say and you take the initiative to call me, you must pay for it, whether it's a joke or information that interest me (and even if you "dialed" a wrong number).
12. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by MysteriousPreacher · 2012-09-30 05:09 · Score: 2
  
  It doesn't make sense to me that I should pay to receive a call from someone, because that's what I'm used to. They made the call, they pay for it. To my knowledge this is the norm in Europe, with the only exceptions being reverse charges calls and calls received while roaming.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
13. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2012-09-30 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  According the the law, the phone companies can not charge for airtime of incoming calls. Most people use prepaid phones, with just enough money to keep the phone active. But they would not dial out any calls. Many very poor people use these phones. Street vegetable vendors, unofficial jitney taxis, servant maids, low paid gate security fellas. ...
  And they have developed some social customs regarding "missed call etiquette". Typically it is understood that you never accept a call from certain classes of people, drivers, maids, delivery boys etc. They call, let it ring once, and they hang up.
  Deja vu all over again. I remember when that was the pay phone deal - call, let it ring 3 times and your ride knew to come get you; when you hung up you got your quarter back as well.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
14. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Cinder6 · 2012-09-30 05:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The moment I realized how seriously messed up the non-unlimited texting system was was when I was in senior year of high school. I sent a friend of mine a small (think four or five) string of short texts, just goofing off. He then got mad at me because "I just cost him a dollar". Ridiculous. I have unlimited texting, so I'm unsure if it's still this bad, but I assume it is.
  Interestingly, Apple's iMessages thing bypasses texting if you're messaging another iOS device. I can actually text my sister now that she has an iPhone (she's never paid for unlimited texting and thus never wanted people to text her). Does Android have an equivalent? It would be awesome if Apple and Google could agree on a cross-platform texting system that used data plans, so we could get rid of SMS fees altogether. I'm sure there are cross-platform apps that let you do this, but it'd be nice to have built-in without convincing everyone you know to download and use some random app.
  
  --
  If you can't convince them, convict them.
15. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by sumdumass · 2012-09-30 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  When mobile phones were introduced, it wasn't just a way to connect people instead of running telephone lines. They were convenience items that allowed you to be connected in more places. The charges were for the air time associated with the devices not necessarily the calls being placed as it was already implicit with the air time. The old radio phones (pre cell technology) started this off.
  Charging for incoming calls is really a relic from charging for the convenience. It makes no sense when the phones are used instead of laying or maintaining copper wires to provide phone service or even when the technology mimics traditional pots technology. But the first companies in the market where the same companies who did the radio phones so it was transferred over because it seemed like a working model.
16. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Mashiki · 2012-09-30 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  This was actually pretty common here in North America back in the 1930's, people would make collect calls using a particular name, and the other person would simply refuse to accept the call. But since it was an agreed name they knew the other person arrived safely. Since the party line stuff is pretty much dead and we don't have KL/AL/BL numbers anymore, and the standard of living is high compared to 80 years ago, this doesn't happen much anymore.
  
  --
  Om, nomnomnom...
17. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by jkflying · 2012-09-30 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  In South Africa we get charged a very small amount for a missed call - around 0.01ZAR (~0.001USD)
  
  --
  Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
18. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  In Australia you see something similar from teenagers, etc, signalling their parents for various things. Typically referred to as a "prank". "Prank me when you get there, and you're ready to be picked up", etc. It's a no cost method of signalling someone.
19. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by isparkes · 2012-09-30 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  errrr, their network is much better now because:
  
  1) Someone is paying so the company can afford to run the machines and add capacity where it is needed
  2) People use the service with some small amount of care, because if they over-use it, they lose something too (the money)
  
  Humans (and animals in general) are generally not able to use good sense in consuming valuable resources that look "free", and even more so when whatever they are consuming is an intangible. Networks take a *lot* of money to run well - people have forgotten that mobile anything is a miracle of technology.
20. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by motokochan · 2012-09-30 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing built-in, unfortunately, but Google Voice works well. If both parties have it, they can send messages to and from the application and it's all counted as data. Since it's a normal phone number, people without it can use standard SMS on their end. The only difference with normal SMS is that Google Voice doesn't handle short codes (those four or five digit numbers often used by marketers and special lists). If you want something even more cross-platform, Google Talk, which uses XMPP, also works great and is a full-fledged IM service.
  Given the animosity between Apple and Google over the whole Android thing, I don't think they'll be working on or agreeing to any kind of cross-platform messaging system anytime soon. Even then, they'll run into issues with the cell carriers in the US who will be very upset over being cut out of revenue they used to get.
21. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Pro-feet · 2012-09-30 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  When I moved to the US, I didn't know I would pay to get a phone call. I found that out _after_ I got me a phone and plan and all. One of those things that made it a little harder to adapt than I expected. Because it just doesn't make sense :-).
  And I never got used to it.
22. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by kwark · 2012-09-30 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  This is how telcos in my small EU country make money:
  +charge caller x/s + y setup (hard to calculate since most mobile users have bundles)
  -pay the receiving telco z/s (regulated at something like: 0.00027 EUR/s fixed dest., 0.00075 EUR/s mobile dest.)
  +if destination is 0800/0900 get an additional kickback fee per call from that telco
  -costs of running/maintaining/replacing/expanding network
  =Profit
  Someone has to pay for the virtual circuit to the receiver, why should it be me? If I have to call anyone it is their fault for not having a more modern method to communicate, they should at least pay some of the burden!
23. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  It was still common in the early 1990s.
  Party lines and KL/AL/BL numbers don't matter for this. What matters is that it isn't worth the time required any more, with the advent of Caller ID.
24. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Reesy · 2012-09-30 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  I went through the process of getting a prepaid sim card when I was there. It pretty much took a whole day out of my schedule. Photocopies of passport, visa and completion of a length form(in triplicate) and I had to provide multiple passport photographs. Returned the form to the vendor who then had to get it approved by an agent from the provider before he could issue me the SIM card. This was last year and I think I read somewhere the rules for foreigners have been tightened further.
25. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by drinkypoo · 2012-09-30 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Even my old Motorola phones (V300 etc, RAZR) would do SMS over TCP, if you had data service. But you can't make them come in that way, just make them go out.
  Charging for SMS is beyond ridiculous, it only takes a couple packets to send one, it takes many packets per second to do voice.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
26. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 08:26 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think any phone company would ever charge for recieving incoming calls. That would just be ridiculous. People would have to pay for phone calls from scammers, pranksters, irritating "friends" who they don't really want to talk to but who it would be rude to ignore, people trying to sell things and all manner of other unwanted parties. You'd end up charging people if you wanted to give them bad news by phone, too.
  Nobody would put up with it. If it had been set up so that recipients paid for calls, telephony would never have taken off. It just doesn't make sense.
27. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Miamicanes · 2012-09-30 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  > Your calling me. Why should I have to pay?
  In the long run, recipient pays was actually GOOD for consumers.
  In countries where callers had to pay, mobile networks had no real incentive to lower the cost of incoming calls, other than maybe allowing free calls between their own customers. In fact, they had every incentive to shift the bulk of their charges to incoming callers, because they don't have the option of taking their business elsewhere if they think the charges are excessive. Their only option is to not call you at all, which is rarely a viable option.
  In contrast, Americans were kind of screwed for incoming call charges for most of the 90s, but once the costs started coming down, carriers found themselves under immense competitive pressure to make the first incoming minute free, increase the number of included minutes, make nights/weekends free (or at least offer more minutes than 98% of customers could ever possibly use), then make nights begin earlier and end later. With "recipient pays", the customer is the one paying both ends of the call, so they're going to scream about ALL of the charges... not just the ones they personally have to pay.
  Given the culture and habits of American carriers, let's look at what life would likely be like today if America had been "caller pays" all along:
  * If you're a Sprint customer, calling other Sprint customers is free. If you're an AT&T customer, calling other AT&T customers is free. Ditto, and exactly the same, for T-Mobile, Verizon, US Cellular, Metro PCS, and the rest.
  * If you're a Sprint customer, calls to an AT&T landline customer are 21c/minute. Calls to an AT&T wireless customer are 39c/minute. Calls to a Verizon customer are 37c/minute in the northeast, and 44c/minute in Nevada, Idaho, and the Seattle metro area. Calls to a T-Mobile customer are 13c/minute, unless the mobile user is roaming on AT&T's network, in which case the call will cost 52c/minute (13c to T-Mobile, 39c to AT&T).
  * If you're an AT&T customer, calls to Verizon customers are 5c/minute, and vice-versa. But calls to Sprint are 21c. Calls to T-Mobile customers are temporarily free for the next 19 months as a post-merger condition, but will thereafter return to 24c/minute.
  * Verizon customers pay more or less the same charges as AT&T customers, except for some unknown reason, Verizon customers get charged a whopping 88c/minute when calling MetroPCS customers.
  At the end of the day, customers who use the same company as everyone they call with any regularity might pay slightly lower rates, but most of us would just get totally screwed by everyone else's carriers. The most popular apps in Android Market would be alternate dialers that dynamically look up the current cost of calling a given number before you press 'send', and warn you of the exact cost based upon the recipient's current carrier... or place the call through one of 5 alternate VoIP providers, if they end up being slightly cheaper per minute to call a given number than calling them directly. In other words, we'd be screwed at least as badly overall as we are now, but we'd be getting screwed by more companies in more complicated ways.
28. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  We have a term for that in NZ too (where mobile rates have been quite high or we are just a country full of tight asses, er anyhow..) its called "pranking".
  Eg "Prank me when you get here and I will open the door for you"
29. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-09-30 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  The really _fun_ bit comes when the carrier has an e-mail to SMS gateway and charges for incoming texts.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
30. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 14:12 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, it's annoying, the way the first phone that you want typically requires all this. And when I got mine, it took them a while to enable ISD (which enables international calling), and what was worse - they were showing my account as unpaid even though I had paid it, and gave me the reason that their systems in headquarters didn't get updated by the local ones. Once when I was out of town for an extended period, I failed to make my payment in another city and had to arrange for them to be paid back at home. A telecom company being that fubar in terms of accepting payments that should be transparent regardless of where it was made was astounding.
  Consider yourself lucky. You were probably there for a brief period. The first time, you have to fill forms, provide IDs and all that. After a few months, the same carrier you have subscribed w/ will call you inviting you to take a new number, or a data card, or their new 3G service, or whatever. Sometimes, it's an attempt to get family members on to the same plan. But whatever, I find it really annoying. In the US, Cingular or AT&T would never cold call me to get a new connection just because I was on their subscriber list. India badly needs a 'Do Not Call' law
31. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by chrismcb · 2012-09-30 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  so we could get rid of SMS fees altogether
  You know that SMS's are virtually free for the carrier. They charge you fees because they can.
  SMS's are like the soda pops of the venue industries.
32. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 17:33 · Score: 0
  
  In Portugal it's called a "toque", which would translate to "ring". Some carriers actually have a service based on this. TMN, the first ever wireless carrier in Portugal, has a service called "tok" where you can send a free fixed content SMS to another number on the same carrier if you do not have enough money on the pre-paid card to actually call and terminate. The other party would receive an SMS with something like "Number 961234567 just sent you a TOK. Please call them"
  I now live in the US and it's just fucking maddening! I do not use my phone at all, except to call my wife. 90% of what I pay right now is because I get calls from telemarketers and about 5 calls a day for someone named "Theresa McDaniel", that i assume owned this number before me. People text me and I'm paying for something I cannot refuse! I actually asked AT&T if they could refuse all SMS's for me, as I do not want to receive them, but they said they can't do it. I HAVE to receive them, and pay for them.
  I also keep my portuguese SIM card working in another phone, here in the US. I pay no roaming as long as I do not accept the call. I also pay no roaming (or anything else for that matter, zero cost) on SMS's received. That is the way it should be.
  The problem is easy to solve in the US, as I see it. Charge double on the outgoing calls and texts, drop all charges on everything incoming. It'll probably keep the same profit level for the carrier. Whoever texts and calls for no good reason, gets to support all the costs.
33. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  Something I forgot...
  There were more than 1.24 cellphones per person in Portugal in 2011 (a decline from 1.4 in 2007) and service is WAY better than in Chicago. Never ever have I had a problem with my data connection during a VoIP call, and I lived in the most densely populated city in the country. Lisbon has 16,726 persons / sq mi.
  In the US we had 1.05 cellphones per person in 2011. With AT&T and T-Mobile (the ones I tried) service is just shit. Sprint is better, but then my international GSM phone doesn't work... Population density in Chicago: 11,864.4/sq mi
  Same phones on all the GSM networks, with same software. Sprint was obviously a different phone.
  Chicago, IL: crappy service.
  Washington, DC: crappy service.
  San Francisco, CA: the worst service I have ever found in the US.
  Phoenix, AZ: service that actually works as intended.
  People back home make fun of the situation because I keep getting dropped calls. Conversation usually starts with something like "How is the internet connection in Rwanda right now? Is it raining or can you talk?"
  And don't even get me started on broadband... Seems like you invented the thing and then stopped updating your infrastructure and/or business models in the year 2000.
34. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 19:06 · Score: 0
  
  In the long run, recipient pays was actually GOOD for consumers. - Don't think so. We have one of the lowest call and sms rates in the World. Problem with america is monopoly and the phone subsidies. Get on with capitalistic bandwagon :)
35. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 23:25 · Score: 0
  
  Or it would be like in Germany, where usually every minute costs the same, regardless of the destination, and usually prices of 0.09 EUR (0.11 USD) per minute. There are more costly contracts where you have free minutes, and other minutes than cost 0.20 EUR (0.26 USD) per minute, but that's probably the most expensive you'll find here. There are also cheaper ones where calls cost 0.075 EUR (0.0967 USD) per minute.
36. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by FireFury03 · 2012-10-01 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  If you want something even more cross-platform, Google Talk, which uses XMPP, also works great and is a full-fledged IM service.
  I tend to use my own XMPP server, but don't usually leave the XMPP client running the whole time because it sucks battery keeping the XMPP session open (if anyone finds a good Android XMPP client that doesn't suck battery, I'm all ears). Its a shame it doesn't integrate with the normal messaging app though.
  
  --
  http://blog.nexusuk.org
37. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by atisss · 2012-10-01 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  So, you could actually create signalling protocol based on ring times and pauses between them. Just install an app, and you have slow but totally free messaging service.
38. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2012-10-01 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  So, you could actually create signalling protocol based on ring times and pauses between them. Just install an app, and you have slow but totally free messaging service.
  Morse Code
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
39. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  It won't be that simple, as you can do only half-duplex and need synchronisation for A calling B and B calling A, and also distinguish regular "call me back" requests.
40. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Your rates are a little outdated - calling and sms rates are less. Data charges at Rs98/2GB are for 2G only - 3G is around 5-6x as expensive per GB (250-300/GB). Rs2/minute to the US suggests Reliance. Airtel does it for 60p/min at the moment ;)
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
41. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Even if I was willing to pay it myself, I could not have gotten account for myself. Lots of security and physical address verification before they give you an account. Police are worried about terrorists and rabble rousers using disposable accounts. Would not say their fears are totally off base.
  I would. There are places that will just give you a SIM card and use someone elses documents. It's in the papers all the time. And it's not stopped any terrorists in the 4 years I've been here.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
42. Re:In coming calls are free in India. by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  In India that would be a disaster.
  Telemarketers and SPAM SMSes are a half-hourly occurrence unless you put yourself on the DNC (do-not-call) list. Then it's maybe daily (because some firms don't take the DNC list seriously - I'm looking at you Reliance General and Club Mahindra Holidays who are perfectly OK with hiring organizations that don't follow the rules and then get pissed off when you send them a bill for your inconvenience).
  Them: You actually expect us to pay this?
  Me: Yes. That's why I sent it, shithead.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
It's ALL data... by CohibaVancouver · 2012-09-30 03:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

What drives me bananas about these plans is in the end it's all data anyway. Whether you're updating Facebook or chatting with Granny, in the end it's just bits streaming to and from your phone. In the old analog cell phone days a case could be made for a user using up a circuit-switched channel for their voice call, but today with packet switching it seems irrelevant.
1. Re:It's ALL data... by Neil_Brown · 2012-09-30 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  What drives me bananas about these plans is in the end it's all data anyway.
  
  Could it be said that the telco provides a service atop that data connection, then, in the form of a voice service?
2. Re:It's ALL data... by arielCo · 2012-09-30 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  In GSM, two fixed time slots, one in an uplink frequency and one for downlink, are assigned to your phone as a part of call setup. In [W]CDMA, your phone requests a 'channel' out of a code space limited by the noise floor. There may also be fixed time slots in the trunks leading to the switch and out to your Granny's side. In both systems this resource won't be released until you hang up so effectively it's circuit switching. VoIP would be a lot more flexible, but you when the resource is momentarily congested you'll curse that flexibility.
  
  --
  This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
3. Re:It's ALL data... by rtaylor · 2012-09-30 04:54 · Score: 2
  
  Not all data is equal. Some is time sensitive (voice) and some isn't (facebook). It seems reasonable to pay extra for routing priority of time sensitive data.
  
  --
  Rod Taylor
4. Re:It's ALL data... by MrZilla · 2012-09-30 04:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  But it's not, exactly. Unless you are using LTE, voice calls are still set up as if they were circuit switched, including allocating resources throughout the network. Only data calls are handled as pure packet switched best effort calls.
  But the biggest reason for separating voice call costs is probably that if you are calling someone who uses a different operator, your operator needs to pay for the use of that network (weather mobile or land line). At least around here, calling someone who is using the same operator is usually free, but calling someone using another operator will cost you a per minute charge.
  
  --
  mov ax, 4c00h
  int 21h
5. Re:It's ALL data... by liquidweaver · 2012-09-30 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Nice sig line. I'd say I thought of it first, but your uid says otherwise :)
  
  --
  mov ah, 4ch
  int 21h
6. Re:It's ALL data... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  In LTE voice is still handled differently from data on the radio layer to ensure the needed bandwidth. You either get what you need to keep the call going, or it is dropped. With data nobody cares about a slight delay or temporary loss of bandwidth.
7. Re:It's ALL data... by phantomfive · 2012-09-30 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  There's a huge difference in the way voice calls are handled by a cell phone network compared to data.
  
  However, the end result of this will be that everyone is required to use VOIP, and gets charged as data anyway.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
8. Re:It's ALL data... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  The big difference is latency.
  A two second delay is acceptable for data, but not for real time voice communication.
9. Re:It's ALL data... by evilviper · 2012-09-30 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Not all data is equal. Some is time sensitive (voice) and some isn't (facebook). It seems reasonable to pay extra for routing priority of time sensitive data.
  Perhaps, but paying $30 for 300 minutes/month, and then crazy 25c/minute for anything over that, is ridiculously high.
  And besides that, WiFi APs are everywhere these days, and smart phones can connect to them easily enough, and use them for all the data transfers instead of the cellular network... Why isn't voice handled the same way? Going VoIP when on WiFi would save a lot of people a whole lot of money, and would still have the fallback to the cellular network, just like data.
  That model is precisely how Republic Wireless gives people unlimited everything for $19/month, as opposed to $55/mo on BoostMobile. http://republicwireless.com/
  I often get angry that this isn't SOP for cell phones, particularly when I'm in a building where a cell signal is non-existant, but I've got a high-speed WiFi connection, and yet I miss calls, and don't even get notified that I've missed a call, perhaps hours later as I leave.
  Coverage issues would be greatly diminished if smartphones just used WiFi APs as part of their network... I know I'd be happy to install APs all over the place to fill in gaps that bother me, and any of my customers... A high power (Buffalo) AP is only $50 shipped these days, and with DD-WRT, the only infrastructure you need is a modest amount of power (5V can be easily provided by PV solar panels)... because it can easily act as a powerful repeater for a distant, very weak, AP.
  Hell, I'd start lobbying the Dept. of Transportation to install a network of WiFi APs, atop power poles or street lights in particular, and in every one of their highway "call boxes", where WiFi would be infinitely more useful.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
10. Re:It's ALL data... by MrZilla · 2012-09-30 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  Always nice to see someone else who keeps in touch with assembly :)
  And I have used this sig since at least 2005, and possible longer, but my memory is getting a bit fuzzy...
  
  --
  mov ax, 4c00h
  int 21h
This is basically where we are headed by fermion · 2012-09-30 03:54 · Score: 1

Right now AT&T have a per device fee to access the network, and then a fee that essentially buys a chunk of data. The per device fee basically bought 500 minutes 10 year, and know buys unlimited voice and text. The data fees are steep, $10-40 a gigbyte. Verizon has essentially the same setup.The old landlines would do this as well, charge for each connected device, and then charge for service. If the mobile follows the same trend, I suspect it will not be long until it just becomes data.
Of course these plans right know are disingenuous, because the per phone fee is essentially paying form unlimited voice and test for each phone, so we are still paying for this. If they were charging say $40 for the first device, and $10 for each additional device like they do on the family plans, then that would make more sense.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
carriers turn entirely into dumb pipes... by fustakrakich · 2012-09-30 03:55 · Score: 2

This is exactly what we should demand of all communication services. Turn them into common carriers and make it the law.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Voice IS data. by gehrehmee · 2012-09-30 04:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Voice is data. It happens to not be very much data, based on how we compress it. Charge it for what it is.
There is the little catch that we want it to be low latency, and in that sense it may well be worth charging a bit of a premium for it.

--
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
Call 911? by aNonnyMouseCowered · 2012-09-30 04:03 · Score: 1

"After all, reporting a car accident with multiple injuries is just as important as delivering the latest cricket scores."
Is that how things are in India? Most countries have a "911" number or its equivalent that's either free or costs much less than a regualr call. So if there's a serious accident that's the number you call.
1. Re:Call 911? by Compaqt · 2012-09-30 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  What he's saying is even if you "call" emergency services, who knows when the packets carrying your voice will arrive at the other end, or in which order, hence not being able to talk as well when you really need it.
  
  --
  I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
2. Re:Call 911? by unixisc · 2012-09-30 14:00 · Score: 1
  
  Do most countries have a mobile 911 facility as yet - one where the police or paramedics know your location from GPS or triangulation services? I know that the US was working on it, but haven't kept track of that. But I think it's safe to say that India is nowhere near it.
3. Re:Call 911? by khallow · 2012-09-30 17:25 · Score: 1
  
  Most countries have a "911" number or its equivalent that's either free or costs much less than a regualr call.
  Nothing is free particularly emergency services. And for some reason, most places want that 911-equivalent service, which piggy-backs on voice, to be pretty reliable.
4. Re:Call 911? by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  India is not one of those countries.
  I mean, sure, you can call a switchboard who MIGHT give you to an appropriate person if you're lucky, otherwise you might be given 4 local telephone numbers of which 3 won't work and 1 won't be answered and IF you get your call answered then you probably called someone in a completely different part of the city who will be able to OR will refuse to help you.
  I speak from experience.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
I don't drink soda pop. by Frosty+Piss · 2012-09-30 04:06 · Score: 1

I think fast food restaurants should stop charging for food and only charge for the soda pop, since that's where the profit center is!

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Re:I don't drink soda pop. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  I think Chinese restaurants should stop charging for chop sticks and fortune cookies
2. Re:I don't drink soda pop. by grenadeh · 2012-10-01 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  The difference being at this point there is no reason to charge for voice if a person has an unlimited data plan. If all they have is voice, charge them for voice. It's an incentive to buy a data plan and end up paying more, considering a data plan including voice is normally 100 dollars a month or more.
Data can operate over voice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 04:17 · Score: 0

Remember the dialup modems of the past?
Install an app on your phone, and another phone at home connected to broadband
Make them talk to each other over voice channel
Free data access
1. Re:Data can operate over voice by Osgeld · 2012-09-30 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  yea, there's a reason we ditched modems
Prices by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 04:23 · Score: 0

As a pint of reference, when I was in India two years ago, unlimited GPRS was $2 a month through Airtel on a $5 prepaid sim.
Quality of service by goombah99 · 2012-09-30 04:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

Voice is lower total bandwidth but requires low latency and no interruptions to be high quality. When data connections are not strained then there is no challenge to provide that but it can become important and thus much more expensive than the data it bears. Personally I do use VOIP and so I know it's not as good as non-voip some of the time.

--
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
1. Re:Quality of service by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 05:12 · Score: 0
  
  There is also the issue of reliability. Voice calls are the main channel to reach emergency services and it is important that they are, for all practical intents and purposes, always available. Pushing the reliability to such extremes is expensive.
2. Re:Quality of service by sjames · 2012-09-30 08:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That's what properly implemented QOS is for. Voice traffic goes to the front of the queue (possibly at the cost of dropping a bulk data packet) and emergency voice traffic can bump other voice packets into the bit bucket if necessary.
3. Re:Quality of service by jamesh · 2012-09-30 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Voice is lower total bandwidth but requires low latency and no interruptions to be high quality. When data connections are not strained then there is no challenge to provide that but it can become important and thus much more expensive than the data it bears. Personally I do use VOIP and so I know it's not as good as non-voip some of the time.
  Personally, I've used VoIP (Skype) so I know it's _way_ better than non-VoIP some of the time.
4. Re:Quality of service by goombah99 · 2012-09-30 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  That's what properly implemented QOS is for. Voice traffic goes to the front of the queue (possibly at the cost of dropping a bulk data packet) and emergency voice traffic can bump other voice packets into the bit bucket if necessary.
  right. And yet india moves to an system indifferent to data types then poof goes your QOS
  
  --
  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
5. Re:Quality of service by sjames · 2012-09-30 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  I see no evidence of anything that would preclude QOS anywhere in TFA.
6. Re:Quality of service by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  1. There's virtually no QOS here anyway. I get dropped calls even outside in a residential area.
  2. http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154149&cid=41579425 and http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154149&cid=41579539
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
What? US carriers already moved to data-only plans by SashaMan · 2012-09-30 04:28 · Score: 1

This initial statement in this post, "In the US, telecom carriers are trying their best to hold on to depleting voice revenues", is blatantly false. BOTH AT&T Wireless and Verizon have already moved to plans where voice minutes are unlimited and only data is metered. Unfortunately, though, those plans pretty much suck because the data rates are so high.
And dialup via cellphone becomes popular by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 04:50 · Score: 0

Whenever the government comes up with a new regulation, humans react by doing something unintended.
If it were free to make voice calls, I'd get myself several cellphones and enjoy completely free 2400 baud internet connections, joined together to give me a half-decent pipe.
Telecom coy's outrageous tariff by mridontry · 2012-09-30 05:13 · Score: 1

that's cool...This is how it should be. Wish my govt can really look into telecom theft on customers.
It's all free to me. by tobiah · 2012-09-30 05:41 · Score: 2

I canceled service with ATT and use my iPhone as a SIP VOIP phone wherever there is Wifi. It's working ok for me, don't really need to be connected all the time, but if I do I'll get a prepaid data plan. Smartphone(iPhone 3G)+SIP client(Groundwire)+SIP service(Callcentric)+Google Voice(free local phone number and visual voicemail) is a rather good, almost free phone/data plan.
I use an OBISoft device to hook another Google voice number through the phone lines in my house, so normal home phones (comfortable and inexpensive) work as VOIP phones.
All I pay for is an internet connection at home and a small bit for SIP service. Ultimately I expect that to become unnecessary as well.

--
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
1. Re:It's all free to me. by bhagwad · 2012-09-30 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  You can also use IPKall to get a free US number that forwards all calls to your SIP address.
Useful "different classifications" by tepples · 2012-09-30 05:50 · Score: 1

I've long been thinking that content and delivery need to be separated in the Cable TV industry
That would require ISPs to actually implement multicast. Digital cable TV and cable Internet work on a fiber-to-the-neighborhood model, and cable TV has an advantage because dozens of people in a neighborhood are likely to be watching the same thing.

we should be charged strictly for the bits that flow in and out of our house, not separately for different classifications of data.
Are unicast and multicast "different classifications"? Are circuit-switched connections (minimum guaranteed throughput and maximum guaranteed latency) and packet-switched connections (best effort) "different classifications"?
Hesitation in other modes of interaction by tepples · 2012-09-30 06:00 · Score: 1

Just about any other mode of interaction over a digital network doesn't treat a split second of hesitation as a sign of being unsure of what to say.
1. Re:Hesitation in other modes of interaction by KiloByte · 2012-09-30 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Uhm, you're nitpicking on one of minor and made-up symptoms. What's meaningful here are the requirements: low-latency and steadiness. Whether tab-completion in bash pauses to show there's nothing to complete to -- but that was really a bout of lag, or whether you ate that rocket in a game due to a sudden lag spike, the result is same: you suffer consequences far worse than having a download last that split of second longer.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
"This is a step forward" by Seumas · 2012-09-30 06:04 · Score: 1

No, it isn't.
VOIP should also be made legal in India by abhi2012 · 2012-09-30 06:45 · Score: 1

I think VOIP services should also be made legal in India. Consider if we had something like Google Voice there. The operators can earn from data and in the meantime calls would be free as well.
Treat voice (and text) as data by davidwr · 2012-09-30 06:46 · Score: 1
Don't charge for calls and texts per se but instead charge for them as if they were data.
I would grant some concessions:
1. If the voice call created a "reserved" data channel exclusive to it even during periods of silence, that can be billed the same as if there was talking going on during those silent periods.
2. If there are costs imposed on the carrier by governments that apply to voice calls but not data calls, then those can be passed on to the customer.
3. If voice-telephone traffic between companies A and B is primarily A-to-B, B may charge A a fee for handling the excess incoming traffic. Unless the government orders company A to distribute the cost evenly (as it might in the interest of ensuring universal service), it's up to company A to decide if it will bill the callers who call to company B specifically, or if it will spread this cost across its entire customer base. In this scenario, company B may be in a different country than company A.
--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Analogy by fm6 · 2012-09-30 07:31 · Score: 1

If data is a utility, it's a utility like gas or electricity. Now, yes, you pay for these by the unit. But you also pay a monthly fee ust for the connection. I pay $6/month connection fee for my natural gas, even in the summer when I could survive with it turned off. But of course it's not practical to turn gas on and off. Not a big deal.
I could certainly live with a data "utility" that charged me based on how much data I consumed — provided the fees were reasonable.
Now, the big reason this isn't happening is that it doesn't fit in with the standard corporate business model, where they deliberately keep their fee structure weird so they never lose an opportunity to gouge the consumer. But let's not forget how resistent geeks have been to paying for bandwidth.
Leapfrogging the west by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 08:03 · Score: 0

Reminds me of the humorous proverb: The sooner you fall behind the more time you have to catch up!
Information technology offers us a massive, almost magical potential. Smart decisions like this help to materialize the benefits. Like using free software (as in freedom).
Don't kill the hen laying gold eggs. Don't think quartals but decades. Think of the rabbit and the turtle.
Cheers India(n minister)!
Dialup goes back in fashion? by Tim12s · 2012-09-30 08:37 · Score: 1

Surely free voice would make the old model of dialup cost effective?
tubes not pipes by superwiz · 2012-09-30 08:55 · Score: 1

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a truck full of back-up tapes moving on a highway at 60 mph.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
47% lie stated often enough is still a lie by voss · 2012-09-30 08:57 · Score: 4, Informative

The program he's talking about in fact serves about 12 million people which is about 4% of the population not 47%.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/story/2012-06-01/low-income-lifeline-plan/55315532/1
1. Re:47% lie stated often enough is still a lie by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  How many qualify but haven't applied (yet)?
2. Re:47% lie stated often enough is still a lie by voss · 2012-09-30 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  About 50 million people which is 1/6 of the population, many of these people will never apply for it because they already
  have cheap pre-paid cell phone plans that provide much more talk time or don't want a cell phone because they can get
  a landline with free local calls for $10-15 a month.
Except that the 3rd world has better service by gelfling · 2012-09-30 09:31 · Score: 1

Indian and African cell phone service is pretty good, better than the US in many places. The US is 15 years BEHIND most of the rest of the world in terms of utility, speeds, service and offerings. And the reason for that is the FCC allows them to be backwards so they can overcharge. If the US gave away free voice, which quite a few carriers do anyway, they'd simply rape you on the data 'plan' they force you to get.
Pun intended. by klingers48 · 2012-09-30 12:12 · Score: 1

"...Is this kind of model sustainable, where voice becomes an outmoded and free technology, and carriers turn entirely into dumb pipes which have no control over what passes over them?"

Pun kind of intended, this is the pipe-dream of every IT savvy person on the planet and an abject nightmare for any service deliverer that fashions themselves as a "content provider".
Phone calls ARE data - duh! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-09-30 15:11 · Score: 0

And right now, cell companies are charging a premium for their data plans - over 200 times what they should be charging.
It's time we stepped in and told our cell company overlords what we're willing to pay for unlimited, unlimited, unlimited, full maximum speed 24x7x365.25 (to cover leapyear).
Right now, I'd say 50 bucks for a family plan, with 5 bucks more a month per phone, nothing for tethered devices, nothing for hot-spot (hot spot device itself like a phone, 5 bucks unless it's built into one of the phones).
That would do for the next 5 years - then I'd expect that price to go down, to say 35 bucks a month, 3 bucks per phone. In 5 years another decline.
No more constant increases, no more raping of the customers. Fuck the investors, instead of dividends, reinvest the profits into the networks.
Make all cell networks common carrier - so every cell company pays to expand 1 (that's right, one) network.
Boom, done.
charge for data by nischal360 · 2012-09-30 19:56 · Score: 0

Charge for data
1. Re:charge for data by nischal360 · 2012-09-30 19:57 · Score: 0
  
  Reply on comment
Come to Switzerland... by LocalH79 · 2012-09-30 20:00 · Score: 1

Swisscom, Switzerland's largest telco, has recently introduced their new pricing model. In this model, all calls and SMS are free, and additionally, you pay a flat fee for your internet usage, depending on the bandwidth you select.
Already not far from it by sociocapitalist · 2012-09-30 21:12 · Score: 1

Not sure we'll see what the minister is asking for on the mobile side of things because of the infrastructure involved but for fixed lines things are already very converged with providers here rolling most voice into the Internet package and it's cheap compared to what you pay in the UK and US.
For 30 Euros a month you get whatever bandwidth DSL or FTTH (which is being deployed at least in metro areas) can provide (up to 100M with fiber, 28M with copper - I was getting (tested, validated) 20M in Paris on copper, now I'm in the countryside relatively far from a pop so I'm down to 4M until they roll the fiber out here), unlimited calls to fixed lines and mobiles in France, unlimited calls to fixed lines in 107 countries round the world (yes I wrote 107), 185 TV channels (14 in HD, the decoder coming with an HDMI interface), wifi, etc.
For anyone curious about costs for mobile service, the same company (called free.fr) provides unlimited calls to mobiles in France, US and Canada, unlimited calls to fixed lines in 40 countries and unlimited SMS/MMS to France, unlimited use of their nationwide wifi network and 3G (HSDPA+) Internet (dropping to lower speeds after you hit a 3 gig soft cap for the month) for 20 Euros a month...without a subscription.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
1. Re:Already not far from it by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  I miss France. We had both Free and Neuf where I lived, but we were ONE building away from delicious delicious fiber.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
2. Re:Already not far from it by sociocapitalist · 2012-10-07 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  So close and yet...must have been frustrating :-D
  
  --
  blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Deja Vu by atisss · 2012-10-01 03:22 · Score: 1

I guess BBS will become popular again.
So.... by TemporalBeing · 2012-10-01 05:57 · Score: 1

They're just arguing for a data-only network where VOIP provides all Voice related services, and SMS is done via a SIP/Jabber-like protocol...yep, that's where cellular is going - that's really what 4G is suppose to be (only the carriers in the US have relabled 3.5G to 4G so they could claim coverage for something that doesn't exist yet - it'll all about the marketing).

And, when they finally do that - when cellular is finally data-only+VOIP - then, and only then, will I actually pay for a data plan.

Go India and make it happen! Show us how cheap cellular really can be!

--
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
1. Re:So.... by mgcarley · 2012-10-07 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  No. No they're not. No VOIP (yet) in India http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154149&cid=41579425 and http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154149&cid=41579539
  Also, US$0.019/min isn't cheap enough for you?
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
2. Re:So.... by TemporalBeing · 2012-10-08 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Also, US$0.019/min isn't cheap enough for you?
  I have a cell plan with 4 phones, and unlimited calling in the US. I don't have a data plan on any of those phones.
  
  However, I would pay for a data-only plan and then use VOIP; but I'm not going to play for both data and voice - at least at the exhorbant rates and rate policies they currently have.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
3. Re:So.... by mgcarley · 2012-10-13 11:16 · Score: 1
  
  That's fine because you live in a country where VOIP to PSTN is legal. That is not the case in India.
  
  --
  Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
perhaps an esol problem? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-01 06:02 · Score: 0

"In the US, telecom carriers are trying their best to hold on to depleting voice revenues" - my guess is the revenues are "diminishing".