strattitarius writes "Mark Zuckerberg met with top mobile and telco executives to address concerns that Internet providers are becoming "simple pipes" as apps like WhatsApp eat into high-margin over-the-top services such as text messaging and even voice communications. Orange SA CEO Stephane Richard stated "The risk for us is being excluded from the world of services".
It would seem that the telcos are realizing that they have been behind the curve as Richard stated "A service like WhatsApp, to be honest, that's something we could've and should've come up with before". Ironically in doing so, they basically make the case that they had every chance and advantage to create these apps and monetize them just as WhatsApp and Skype have done."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Zuckerberg Dines with European Telco Execs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1000 moderator points
| 65 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by isostatic on Friday February 28 2014, @08:15AM
Well of course they're stuck. SMS especially gave them a massive profit for no cost.
They now have the same problem as landline phone companies. Their added "services" are irrelevant, they exist to transfer bits of data from one place to another. Same as other utilities - you don't want added services from your electricity company.
The telcos and cablecos are trying their best to survive with things like triple-play, and there's a whole industry that supports them, but in the end they'll fail.
People don't want their electricity company to provide their fridge, or their gas company to provide a boiler.
People will want a connectivity provider. This give you an ip address and forwards packets. Other companies, with expertise in the area, then build services based on, and independent to, that connectivity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bd on Friday February 28 2014, @08:32AM
Well, to them it certainly must look bad. While 10 years ago they were able to get money for every message sent, today, at least in Germany, a mobile contract that includes SMS, voice and mobile-internet flat-rates goes for something like 20 EUR per month.
I think they are just angry that _they_ didn't think it is possible advertisers would give them such an amount of money for the personal information of their customers back when social networks took off.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by monster on Friday February 28 2014, @11:34AM
As I have already said in this comment [dev.soylentnews.org]: They didn't want to innovate or to risk new things (and maybe fail) if that meant the risk of substracting revenue from their inflated prices. So, they stalled, were left behind, and now are crying foul. And we are expected to feel remorse. Yeah, sure.
(Score: 0) by Bill, Shooter Of Bul on Friday February 28 2014, @01:44PM
Yup, this, in spades.
They tried their way of running their own j2me app stores that sucked and charged more for a ring tone than itunes charged for the actual full song. They screwed it up, and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle or rewinding time.
Also, this fear of being turned into a dumb pipe was why every other carrier turned down the iphone. They understood exactly what giving up control over the os on a powerful device would do to them.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Friday February 28 2014, @04:23PM
I for one have no sympathy for them.
If your revenue came from captive audiences and overpriced services, and not true innovation and delivering what the customer actually wants, you deserve to die. That's the *WHOLE* raison d'etre for capitalism and free markets right? Survival of the fittest?
We cherish those ideals over in the US, but we clearly do not apply them. Anytime we can take down a monopoly and destroy a piece of the old guard is a time for celebration.
What they don't understand is their complaint of being a dumb pipe falls on deaf ears. We are not better off with their monopolies and 'added services'. They will become, and absolutely should be, dump pipes.
Data is just going to become something as banal as water or electricity, but hopefully with more options for connectivity.
Common carriers and dump pipes is the only logical solution for an efficient infrastructure devoid of all the bullshit that lead to million % profit margins on SMS.
(Score: 0) by Bill, Shooter Of Bul on Friday February 28 2014, @06:53PM
They look at that 19 billion valuation on whatsapp, and weep uncontrollably.
(Score: 1) by citizenr on Friday February 28 2014, @12:47PM
>I think they are just angry that _they_ didn't think it is possible advertisers would give them such an amount of money for the
>personal information of their customers back when social networks took off.
Telefónica (fifth largest provider in the world) has been collecting (and trading) this information since forever.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzS83BGdWco [youtube.com]
(Score: 1) by Gryle on Friday February 28 2014, @11:08AM
Not necessarily, depends on the service. I have the option to get Internet through the local utility at a better price and higher speed than Comcast. I'm guessing Comcast hates this to no end because I get a snailmail advert from them at least once a week trying to convince me to switch.
Ignorance can be remedied. Stupid seems to be a permanent condition.
(Score: 0) by rogueippacket on Friday February 28 2014, @01:31PM
Unfortunately, there is exactly no profit to be had from providing dumb pipes beyond a regional scale. Not to mention the fact that your local utility puts the lines in the ground once and then just maintains them - those gas and transmission lines don't change very often, and customers don't expect 10-100x more capacity every decade either.
I completely agree most telcos suffer from inflated egos coupled with a poor understanding of what their customers actually want, but those added services (home phone, IPTV, alarm systems, etc.) for the masses are what subsidize the cost and growth of the networks we want. It may only cost a thousand bucks to bring gigabit fiber to your home, but until the telcos and content providers figure out how to play in the same sandbox without calling each other bad names, there's no point - you'll only get those gigabit speeds to nearest CO, not the content you want.
Not to mention the various regulatory agencies crying foul whenever the two try to merge...
(Score: 1) by fliptop on Friday February 28 2014, @08:42PM
I have to disagree, my Dad worked for BG&E [bge.com] for 42 years and we always bought our appliances from their store at the mall. In fact, he felt their decision to close their appliance stores [baltimoresun.com] was unfortunate. Quote from the linked article:
"Discounting created lower margins, [and] expenses were increasing," Munn said. "We were getting squeezed on margins even though our customers were faithful."
They had been selling appliances since 1904, btw.
If you have second thoughts about booking a trip to an Indian casino, is it a reservation reservation reservation?
(Score: 1) by glyph on Saturday March 01 2014, @01:16AM
Your dad still had the choice. Most national telcos sell phones retail, and that's fine. We have the choice to buy elsewhere. Back in the day most telcos SUPPLIED the phone, and you were forbidden from connecting anything else to their network. Technology was stagnant for decades. We don't want to return to those days, but you can bet carriers do.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Taco Cowboy on Friday February 28 2014, @08:37AM
Earlier today I did a submission on Slashdot (p ose-charging-for-using-apps [slashdot.org] ) on a closely-related matter.
http://slashdot.org/submission/3372277/telcos-pro
Telcos in Singapore as well as in Australia are proposing that they want to put a surcharge on users who use apps, such as WhatsApp) and users who stream videos on services such as Youtube.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2014, @08:44AM
Slashdot? Jesus, you just made me visit slashdot! Not a happy camper here. Choose your side d00d.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 28 2014, @11:19AM
Choose your side? Why? SN and /. offer similar services. I'll just sit back, and see what happens. So far, I like SN. But, I'm not totally fed up with /. either. Competition is good. /. can't sit with their fingers stuck in their orifices, or they'll be left behind. SN can't just sit and feel smug that they are challenging the establishment, either. One, or the other, or both, are going to be a whole lot better for competition.
Now, if you were talking about choosing between Windows and Linux - I chose sides long, long, LONG ago.
http://penguinuity.com/Animation/Tux/Tux1.jpg [penguinuity.com]
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday February 28 2014, @04:39PM
If SN wants to win, it's going to need to post better written stories about news faster than the other site. How else can SN positively differentiate from /.?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [dev.soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2014, @04:53PM
Easy... stay away from sensationalist claptrap.
Want to bring out the loonies? Talk about politics (D vs R) is always a good long 400 user story. Talk about the weather (global warming) usually a good 400 user story. Talk about what some government worker did to over react to something sort of tech. Talk about how some sort of economic thing will change the world (that way we can get every armchair economics 150 class taker to bikeshed about).
Basically post stories that divide your audience into 2 groups that will fight. End with a leading question like 'your not stupid are you?'.
Make all your stories 'bikeshed' stories and you will soon have an audience as thoughtful and as 'good' as /. is now.
Post stories like what you see on hackaday. Mixed in with a small bit of how tech is changing the world. You will do fine. Post what I talked about above and we will end up with an 'ok' /. or reddit clone.
(Score: 1) by kru on Friday February 28 2014, @07:17PM
How else can SN positively differentiate from /.?
/. right now because I can once again read all the comments at -1 and not be innundated by tripe, whether that be shills, trolls or just well-meaning people with nothing useful to add (like me!).
By offering better, more insightful comments from a superior readership. I like SN better than
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 02 2014, @08:08PM
I know it probably doesn't mean much but I visited the IRC channel once earlier on while everyone was still discussing the problems that this site will have being funded (and a bunch of other things) and I since haven't really been following up. I've still been visiting Slashdot and have been ... disappointed by both the posted stories and by the comments. They were/are sub-par to say the least. I just revisited this site and am very impressed by how much it advanced. The story quality is good and the comments so far seem to be a huge improvement over what Slashdot is now. Thanks.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2014, @09:28AM
I think it's a faux pas to link to Slashdot. We are here because we are done with Slashdot, and I, for one, resent the attempt to lure me back.
I have mod points. Next time I see a link to Slashdot, I'm modding it Offtopic.
(Score: 2, Funny) by tibman on Friday February 28 2014, @10:21AM
So guys, for the next 5-10 minutes don't link to slashdot :P
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Kawumpa on Friday February 28 2014, @09:31AM
What is this Slashdot-thingy?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2014, @09:41AM
It's the root directory, of course.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Friday February 28 2014, @01:20PM
Nice. Do you have any goatse pictures you could share as well?
(Score: 1) by Dutchster on Friday February 28 2014, @01:35PM
What is this "Slashdot" of which you speak? I am curious to learn more!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday February 28 2014, @09:06AM
I don;t get it. To my mind, they are and should be simple pipes: the era of AOL is long gone. The sooner they realize that and start concentrating on doing those pipes and "storage tanks" better (CDNs), the better for everyone.
Services? Wouldn't this be like the water company trying to add another tap to distribute... I don't know... lemonade maybe? Thanks but no thanks: if I have water, I can make a lemonade by myself.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2014, @09:31AM
A pipe is a service. And the most important one at that. Maybe they should concentrate at making that service as good as possible.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday February 28 2014, @09:45AM
<gratuitously-pedantic mode="on">To me, a pipe is an utility. Delivering whatever that pipe is meant to support is indeed a service</gratuitously-pedantic>
Other than that, I agree.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 28 2014, @11:23AM
What on EARTH do you mean by "as good as possible"? Surely, the masses aren't demanding more than a mere trickle of data, are they? Isn't it enough that email loads in less than a minute? Streaming? Whatever for? They should be happy with a connection fast enough to download a movie each week.
Forget "as good as possible", we just want more money for the less than adequate service we already offer!!
(Score: 1) by Dunbal on Friday February 28 2014, @01:40PM
Hah! That would take actual work. It's much better when we all agree to be lazy and sub-let someone else's pipe. When service degrades enough we can always blame it on pirates, porn and pedophiles until someone else's technology saves us again. Then we can put our rental prices up again and let big fiber take care of the actual physical network.
(Score: 1) by glyph on Saturday March 01 2014, @01:24AM
FTFY
(Score: 1) by allsorts46 on Friday February 28 2014, @11:19AM
Indeed, I'm not at all 'concerned' about ISPs becoming 'simple pipes'.
There's nothing wrong with them from building their own competing apps and services that run on their pipes (so long as their don't artificially cripple the competition). If they can offer a range of useful services, they may still get customers who like the convenience.
(Score: 1) by davester666 on Friday February 28 2014, @02:53PM
Except this immediately becomes grounds for being anticompetitive. If you are the ISP, and you want to get your subscribers to use your new video service, you really wouldn't mind if NetFlix had more buffering problems, and if iTunes can't download quite so fast.
And it's making for fun times in the cable industry, where some of the pipes own some of the content, and then want crazy rates for other pipes to get that content. They actually use the "well, we pay this amount for the channel, so you should to" argument [ie, we transfer this much money from our left pocket to our right pocket].
(Score: 1) by drussell on Friday February 28 2014, @02:12PM
They're worried about becoming simple pipes?
I thought these kind of folks knew it was a series of tubes! :)
(Score: 1) by pbnjoe on Friday February 28 2014, @06:54PM
+1 (in spirit) This is exactly what I came to post. What I seem to be reading is that Internet Providers are upset that they seem to be providing internet. Huh. It's like lumberjacks being upset that they appear to be only cutting down trees.
*grump*
(Score: 4, Funny) by ticho on Friday February 28 2014, @09:29AM
Please, editors, abstain from childish name mangling, it just looks petty. I get it, you don't like Zuckerberg and his Facebook. I don't like it either. But this is unprofessional, and doesn't even bring anything positive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2014, @09:38AM
How do you know that it is not a genuine error? Given how often I've seen "iceburg" instead of "iceberg", it is definitely not unlikely.
(Score: 1) by mindriot on Friday February 28 2014, @09:53AM
soylent_uid=$(echo $slash_uid|cut -c1,3,5)
(Score: 5, Informative) by mattie_p on Friday February 28 2014, @09:59AM
Fixed now. But don't worry, we'll keep posting errors. The first person who finds a hundred wins the internet. Thanks for reading ~mattie_p
(Score: 1) by stormwyrm on Friday February 28 2014, @10:23AM
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
(Score: 2) by cwix on Friday February 28 2014, @11:26AM
Why did you jump to the conclusion it was purposeful?
(Score: 2) by ticho on Friday February 28 2014, @01:09PM
I like to jump. I also consider this site's staff competent enough to notice if a well-known name is spelled one way in the title, and another way in the text, and to correct it before letting an article out.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Dopefish on Friday February 28 2014, @01:09PM
Sorry about that. My intent wasn't to belittle Zuckerberg as I didn't catch this error previously. Thank you for your comment.
(Score: 2) by ticho on Friday February 28 2014, @09:23PM
No hard feelings. Got to keep you guys on your toes, right? :)
(Score: 2) by Dopefish on Friday February 28 2014, @09:28PM
No hard feelings, good sir. Thanks for the support!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by slash2phar on Friday February 28 2014, @09:39AM
Amazing myopia. It would be as simple as eliminating theit staggering SMS charges.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dublet on Friday February 28 2014, @09:40AM
You may say that European telcos have turned into dumb pipes, but to my regret, BT doesn't offer their fibre optic Infinity package without you getting a phone line as well. I recently asked their twitter service account why [twitter.com] and just gave me some rubbish generic answer asking me to just get their service. They very much still think they're a telephone company.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by allsorts46 on Friday February 28 2014, @11:17AM
Thanks for this. I was considering switching to BT Infinity (on Virgin right now), but I won't bother if they're going to force me to pay for a phone line too. Don't mind having one, but don't want to pay for something I never wanted in the first place.
(Score: 1) by dublet on Friday February 28 2014, @01:30PM
I'm in the same boat as you, have Virgin but they're not great. At the very least they don't make me have a land line.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 1) by isostatic on Friday February 28 2014, @12:21PM
Well to be fair you need a physical telephone line. It's FTTC, not FTTH. They pop round with a new faceplate for your socket, you bamboozle them when you say you're using your own router to establish the pppoe tunnel as their's doesn't even support static routes, let along OSPF, and you're set. Noone is forcing you to plug a phone in.
The cost that BT give you is £20 for the VDSL + £10 for the line rental
I'm sure they'd be happy to charge you £35 for the VDSL and not charge you any line rental
(Score: 1) by dublet on Friday February 28 2014, @01:42PM
To get the equivalent package I have with Virgin, I would need their top tier subscription, which is26 + line rental of 15.99, which makes 42 a month. Virgin are charging me 26.15.
All I want is their data pipe, not the phone connection so why would I pay for that? I understand that with DSL you're running it over the same physical connection but I have no interest in their voice service that with their pricing structure I would be paying for.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 1) by isostatic on Friday February 28 2014, @02:26PM
Why do you think you're paying for it? The costs of offering it with or without the phone service are probably insignificant, less than the costs of offering two separate systems. I believe that the way BT was structured in the unbundling of 15 years ago, it means you have to be charged separately, to prevent the monopolistic situation they have in the states.
If Virgin works for you, that's great, that's where we have a competition, in the ground (Virgin vs BT vs Wireless), and in the DSL cabinet (BT vs Zen vs Talk Talk vs A&A vs etc)
To be honest I have no idea how much I pay for my BT line, I get 80 down, 40 up, and it works fine with my mitel handset.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bucc5062 on Friday February 28 2014, @09:45AM
There is just so much in this little summary....First, the fact that Zuckerburg is sitting down with EU CEOs to talk tells me that the entry bar for becoming a CEO is actually pretty low. 10 years ago Z was a snot nosed kid pushing a social program onto college campuses and today he is rubbing elbows with EU Telco giants. Is he that much a wonderkinder, is having a few billion the way to get respect and entry into that club? On the other hand, there was an article that indicated to be a CEO of a major corporation you needed to be a ego-driven narcissist or border line sociopath so perhaps he is suited for the job. I never saw the movie, I never read much about him, but why is it that whenever I see anything about him I feel like I need a shower.
In regards to the summary, this is why the US public needs to push Obama and the FCC to change the status of these major broadband companies to common carriers. I fear it is too late, but if it does not pass, what I see is silos of information/apps building up, similar to the monopolies generated by cable companies in municipalities. In the future, Verizon has its own "services" and basically blocks use through heavy throttling or heavy charges to outside third parties like Netflix. The "Free Market" no long is free and the idea of competition is tossed out as major companies slice up the country.
To borrow a meme, in Soviet Amerika, Verizon owns you.
Having the CEO of Facebook chatting up with EU Telcos should really trouble EU citizens (and I would hope EU politicians). Obviously his motive is for profit, to squeeze every EU penny he can and by 'assisting' companies like Orange, he is the first parasite to try and suck off the blood of a new host. The US is drying up (or not producing enough food for the FB worm) so he will try to attach to Europe via Telcos/broadband and get around privacy laws any way he can.
Nothing good would ever come from Mark Zuckerburg's Facebook consulting with EU telecommunication companies except to enrich the pocket of the very few whilst fleecing yours.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 0) by elgrantrolo on Friday February 28 2014, @10:14AM
Yes! That would be a valid criteria in my opinion.
Another one is that When Facebook becomes a messaging service for many millions worldwide, they certainly start qualifying as a player in the telecom field. A player that did not have to dig up streets and install cables all over the place, and therefore grew substantially with an effort that is quite different to that of the POTS companies.
The traditional players must be keen to find a way to push the market in a way that is not 100% sales for FB and 100% infrastructure and customer service costs for them.
I don't know who the parasite here is, probably they'll be talking about peering agreements so that when FB/whatsapp videochat becomes significant traffic they can all live together in peace, or with some rents to pay, like netflix.
(Score: 1) by tibman on Friday February 28 2014, @10:42AM
Gene Sperling and Todd Park replied to a petition over making ISPs common carrier. Basically saying the US President appointed the FCC chairman but has no control over him or the FCC (wtf!). You can see the whole response in the last few paragraphs here: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/reaffirm ing-white-houses-commitment-net-neutrality [whitehouse.gov]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bucc5062 on Friday February 28 2014, @10:56AM
Yes, I had read that, actually replied to the petition response and had posted it also on the other site (as S/N had not been born yet).
The official response to the petition was tepid, this opens the door for the People to push back harder and demand a more proactive response than "I wash my hands". I want to write to my representatives, but they are either Tparty extremists or at best, solid conservative republicans (I am neither) so getting the wording such that they may listen is difficult to create.
I'll leave it at that for just thinking about a future were ISPs get to dictate content over the internet is just sad and I need happy today.
The more things change, the more they look the same
(Score: 1) by tibman on Friday February 28 2014, @12:28PM
It's rough when most of your national representation is by citizens that appose your view. I have called McConnell's office and let him know what i thought. They usually write nice letters back but are more informative than anything else : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Funny) by isostatic on Friday February 28 2014, @10:53AM
Nothing good would ever come from Mark Zuckerburg's Facebook consulting with EU telecommunication companies except to enrich the pocket of the very few whilst fleecing yours.
That's OK, I have nothing left after all the other fleecing that's been going on.
(Score: 1) by rts008 on Friday February 28 2014, @05:08PM
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose..."
The paradox is 'nothing left to lose' usually equates with a sensation of being backed into a corner.
"Facsinating, Captain." *Spock*
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Friday February 28 2014, @01:04PM
If you don't use Facebook, Verizon, or Netflix, then you are not part of the problem.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Dunbal on Friday February 28 2014, @01:48PM
There are deeper roots to the problem than this. Why do you use Netflix? Because it's one of the few "legal" alternatives to getting the content and only the content you want when you want it that is not ridiculously priced. Of course ISP's are going to bitch, the only model that makes sense to them is them choosing the content you get to watch. And of course content creators are going to bitch because they think their 20 year old episode of "Friends" that they have sold and broadcast countless times around the world still really is worth $10 per person per episode.
The internet wasn't designed for top down distribution but it is being forced into that model by the middlemen. So that episode gets streamed from a central location over and over and over again, instead of moving horizontally thought the net.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by r00t on Friday February 28 2014, @10:27AM
Anytime a company "meets with Telcos" the end result is typically bad news for consumers.
(Score: 1) by Asshole on Friday February 28 2014, @04:53PM
Anytime the telcos do ANYTHING, it is typically bad for consumers.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Kilo110 on Friday February 28 2014, @10:50AM
I got a little excited
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 28 2014, @01:41PM
i really don't get it. .. that is a cover over a hole and then you plug in your cable and start rolling the cable home to your house.
telcos offering internet should be installing pillars of concrete everywhere. like fire hydrants.
you go to their office, say you want a port and such-and-such speeds and that you already have scouted out the nearest
internet pillar. they then show up and meet you there to unlock / open a port
fire hydrant and pipe!
(Score: 1) by Boxzy on Saturday March 01 2014, @09:34AM
These avaricious corporations have been deliberately holding such things back for decades. They are just angry it didn't work.
Go green, Go Soylent.