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."

21 of 177 comments (clear)

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 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.
2. 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
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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!
6. 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.
7. 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
8. 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?
9. 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.
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.
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 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.
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 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
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
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 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.
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