VOIP to be Made Illegal in India

Krish writes "Providers like Skype, Yahoo, Net2phone, Dialpad, etc. will not be able to offer VOIP in India under the proposed govt. clampdown. BPOs and other call centers will face the axe if they use any of the VOIP services provided by the above companies. It is not clear if this clampdown will affect regular home users."

Oh the irony...

[grub]

Call your VOIP carrier's helpdesk and you might get hold of some guy in India.

Re:

[Harmonious Botch]

But now we are less likely to because at least one part of call center expenses in India are going to cost MORE now. The more I think of this silly law, the more I like it.

Re:Oh the irony...

[arivanov]

That may or may not be the case.

1. The law has been in force for a very long time. Ask anyone who has actually done a proper costing and the legal aspects of outsourcing to India and they will tell you this.

2. The law as such dissallows you to interface into a PBX or anything else which is also connected to the local network over there. In fact as far as the letter of law is concerned this is not that much different from telco regulations in many places around the world.

3. The law does not dissallow you to host as many VOIP phones there as you like provided that they are off your own PBX located outside India and do not interface into the local phone network by any means. So a call center whose guts are located offshore is still fully legal. On(Indian)shore is very murky and it is not something call center outsourcers care about. After all the call center chickens working 10.5 hour shifts are usually not allowed local calls anyway.

4. As far as Yahoo, Dialpad, etc are concerned they are simply required to be registered under the Indian telecoms regs to offer service. This for all practical purposes means that they or their subsidiaries will have to go under majority Indian ownerships. So much for WTO here (actually dunno if they are a member). In fact it is about time someone beat up India in terms of trade treaties and obligations on this.

So overall, this law does not change anything as far as call centers are concerned. The Idian government is not mad to kill their primary GDP source. All it does is to ensure that the near-monopoly of Idian companies on the Idian telecoms market is retained for times to come.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

As far as Yahoo, Dialpad, etc are concerned they are simply required to be registered under the Indian telecoms regs to offer service. This for all practical purposes means that they or their subsidiaries will have to go under majority Indian ownerships. So much for WTO here (actually dunno if they are a member). In fact it is about time someone beat up India in terms of trade treaties and obligations on this.

India would be idiotic not to do this and so would any other nation. Look at how well it's work

Oblig

[Swimport]

If VOIP is illegal, only criminals will have VOIP.

Re:

[RatRagout]

Great solution. Ban everything that is good, instead of doing an effort to provide something better. A billion people should be able to come up with something at least as good rather quick, but they're probably busy doing their daytime job for Skype or Yahoo...

Re:Oh the irony...

[PaneerParantha]

People do not seem to have read the article.

It doesn't say that VOIP will be banned in India, it says:

1. Illegal Web calls by BPOs face axe

2. Companies...not use the services of unlicensed foreign service providers such as Net2Phone, Vonage, Dialpad, Impetus, Novanet, Euros, Skype and Yahoo

3. According to official sources, foreign players such as Skype, in addition to disturbing the level-playing field for bonafide licensees, were also causing great revenue loss to the government as they did not pay the 12% service tax and 6% revenue share on internet telephony.

4. The government move, when implemented, will fulfil a long-pending demand of internet service providers (ISPs).

5. ...call centres and BPOs can ensure that they are availing services from an authorised service provider.
IOW, VOIP won't be banned but more regulated.

The headline of this story is sensationalist.

Re:

[Zwaxy]

This is Slashdot. The headlines almost never reflect the true story.

Re:

[amuzulo]

This is Slashdot. Slashdotters almost never read the article.

Re:Oh the irony...

[siufish]

Why should it be otherwise?

Ask yourself honestly: will you make any purchase decision based on whether the call centers are in India or in the US? How many times does it come up in your head when you are picking a VOIP carrier? Shopping for a digital camera? Deciding between a Amex or a Visa card?

Now ask yourself the next question: will you make any purchase decision based on the price? If one VOIP costs $19.99/month and has call centers in India, and another costs $39.99/month and employs only American citizen call agents, which one will you choose?

To businesses, call centers are "cost centers", and accordingly should be as cheap as possible. If they can make the same amount of money with cheaper call centers, they will. If customers don't care, they won't care.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Oh the irony...

[anothy]

i agree with this, but with a caveat.

If a company cares about customer service, they will hire (for their United States customers) support staff that can properly service someone who speaks the US variety of English.

this is true and vital, and plenty of companies have learned it, or are learning it now. but note that there's absolutely no reason why that person can't be Indian and in India. there are plenty of language schools in India that turn out people who're entirely fluent in english, including the american dialect.
my experience working with engineers in India is that there's basically two ways companies can go about building a dev team in India. first, you can hire good engineers who cost aroudn 1/2 to 1/3 of what they'd cost in the US, and have at least roughly comparable skill levels. second, you can hire warm bodies who're engineers on paper, and you can get them for 1/5 to 1/10 of what similarly warm bodies would cost in the US. if whoever's in charge of hiring there understands that people are not fungible assets, you've got a good chance of getting a useful and productive team in India; if not, you're more or less screwed. my experience with customer support (other than as a customer) is more limited, but i have no reason to believe it's not the same there.
i work with a guy who says things like "an indian could never understand me", where "understand" means "relate to". he gives examples of things like understanding baseball. wtf do i care if the customer support rep on the phone knows who won the Yankees game last night, regardless of where they are? there's legitimate points about language barrier and cultural differences impacting effective communication, and then there's flimsy rationalizations for stinking racism.

Re:

[anothy]

not true, or at least not generally so. two things to consider.
first, there are schools which specialize in just doing this type of language education. there is no requirement of "higher education" as we think of it. they're often called "finishing schools", and their job is just to help participants overcome the language barrier. they do this for participants from different backgrounds and headed towards different fields. it's therefore possible to find people with perfectly fine english without any partic

Re:

[Shihar]

If a company cares about customer service, they will hire (for their United States customers) support staff that can properly service someone who speaks the US variety of English. It's hard enough convincing Time Warner representatives located just a few miles from here that the problem is on their end. I'd cancel their service if I had to deal with a language barrier too. I guess this customer cares.

While there is some danger is using an Indian call center, it isn't as bad as people make it out to be. It

Re:Oh the irony...

[jamesh]

To businesses, call centers are "cost centers", and accordingly should be as cheap as possible. If they can make the same amount of money with cheaper call centers, they will. If customers don't care, they won't care.

That bit about customers not caring is so true. But as soon as you start spending money outside of your community (village/city/stage/country), it's gone.

People go and buy imported goods (and services now it seems) because they save a few dollars, and then bitch and moan because another factory has closed down and they're out of work. It's your own f*cking fault people!!! If you're lucky enough to live in a country that protects working conditions, then ffs don't go and buy stuff from a country that doesn't. You're only ripping yourselves off.

Just one more effort

[zappepcs]

of the uninformed to try to control what they have no clue about in order to protect outdated and now irrelevant business models... sigh

Re:Just one more effort

[Atlantis-Rising]

...that 'outdated and irrelevant business model' would be the government, seeing as they are, according to TFA, pissed off that the VOIP companies are not paying their taxes.

Re:

[bky1701]

Your point being? ;)

But seriously, this sounds like a violation of SOME trade agreement. Not everything people in your country use can be taxed all the time.

Re:

[Broken scope]

Really? Try to tell a government that.

Re:

[Secrity]

Telecommunications tax (or monopoly) on telephone calls is likely to be considered to be one item by the government. If it is a tax issue, it is not unusual for telephone calls to be taxed, and some governments consider VoIP to be evading taxes. Although in India's case they may killing a golden cash cow because this is going to raise costs to their outsourcing industry.

Re:

[Maxo-Texas]

So when people play everquest and chat it should be taxable to?

And the irony of the low cost labor provider of the world being mad because of low cost (FREE) products is priceless.

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

I don't think anybody said that. This is, however, not just some random decision by the Indian government to OMG CENSOR TEH INTARWEB TUBES! as the headline pretends.

It's a standard, relatively sane, completely understandable move. Hell, I'm 90% sure the FCC has already done this.

Now, there are a lot of reasons why it's not a good thing. But that doesn't detract from any of the above.

Re:

[Maxo-Texas]

Right now.

I'm sitting in everquest and listening to people from all over the world as well as we are on a raid.

Sam Malone Style, FREE!

How do you justify taxing something that's free?

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

You've never heard of proposals to tax work done in video games? The theory is, work is being done, and value is being accumulated from it. Therefore, that value should be taxable.

That is, after all, how taxes work.

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

Why? The government isn't making you do the labour. If you spin it up as child labour, the government bans children from playing video games.

Exactly how is this a good thing?

Taxing children for work done in scheel.

[zotz]

I know, let's tax children for the work they do in school! They are doing work and accumulating value so we should tax it. Plus to do even better. We can tax those children making higher grades at a higher rate as the work they are doing is obviously and certifiably more valuable. Right??? ~;-)

all the best,

drew

Re:

[Jeffrey Baker]

You may want to brush up on the concept of sovereign power. There's nothing a functioning government cannot tax. In the USA, for example, the only thing that can't be taxed is the exercise of some inalienable right. For example, you cannot be taxed for voting. But damn near anything else is taxable.

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

This quote perfectly deals with both the issue and your sig:

The common phrase "law and order" is often used mistakenly as a misleading cliche, with emphasis on the "order" part of the phrase, with slight regard for "law". Under a regime of law, a developed legal system imposes restraints on the quest for order. By contrast, a self-help system bypasses such restraints and leans toward the extralegal enforcement of order. Historically, private violence, sometimes in conjunction with constituted authority and

The world will be a worse place

[TheLink]

"Gather a mob, shoot the bureaucrats between the eyes" "The world would be a better place if this happened more frequently."

Really? It already happens a bit too frequently, and the world is a worse place for it.

Typically it's the mob leaders who don't mind killing people who end up in power (because the "other options" end up dead - doh). And that's how people like Mao, Saddam Hussein, the leaders of Syria, Sudan, etc rise to the top - their opponents either get killed, jailed, or exiled. And that is why Karl Marx's Communism dreams tend to end up as nightmares - because he suggested violence as a means to communism.

If you keep doing that once in a while if you get lucky you get a benevolent dictator or a dictator who somehow thinks that democractic elections are a good idea.

But what are the odds? If you end up in such a scenario it may be better to just wait (leave or stay) and hope that the dictator picks successors who are less violent (which has a higher chance of happening, since the dictator will want to eliminate threats - e.g. others like him). Then when the time is right you make a move for mass civil disobedience - NOT violence and hope the soldiers will disobey as well.

It's not the phone company

[WhiteDragon]

I expected this was a phone company wanting to maintain their monopoly, but apparently it's the government wanting to capitalize on taxing VOIP services, and American (and other) providers are obviously not going to pay taxes to the government of India.

Re:

[carpeweb]

Lots of American multinationals pay taxes to foreign governments. In fact, the system of international taxation is mind-numbing. Although I think it might be shooting itself in the balls (by making Indian call centers more expensive), it's not surprising to see a government try to tax economic activity. To steal from Willie Sutton (an irony he certainly would have appreciated), "that's where the money is".

Although the article was written in a foreign language (English with Indian TLAs), I gather that

"How to keep India poor?" Interfere with commun...

[Futurepower(R)]

Ask yourself, self, how could this happen?

Some rich and powerful government leaders were sitting around saying, "How do we keep India poor?" After many weeks of deliberation (They aren't very intelligent, of course.) they decided, "That's it! We'll interfere with cheap communication."

Only UNLICENSED VOIP to be made illegal in India

[Somegeek]

Another exciting headline that unfortunately has little to do with the truth.

In the linked article it states that goal of the proposed legislation is that call centers are not going to be allowed to continue to use unlicensed VOIP. That is a huge difference from the Slashdot headline claiming that India is banning VOIP.

India is quite happy to have them use domestic Indian VOIP providers thereby allowing the government to tax and regulate them. Much like we have in the US where the FCC regulates and taxes VOIP providers.

Re:

[Somegeek]

[...]like we have in the US where the FCC regulates and taxes VOIP providers.

When did that start happening?

In June. http://news.com.com/FCC+approves+new+Internet+phon e+taxes/2100-7352_3-6086437.html [com.com]

Re:

[Somegeek]

Not that I've read TFA, but what's "licensed" VOIP?

It would be an ISP that is licensed by some government body in India to provide VOIP services. From what I've heard it seems that India really likes to license and tax things. There was a story a few months ago where Indian ISPs were going to be taxed for generating "Light Energy". http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/10/173221 7 [slashdot.org]

Re:

[Somegeek]

VoIP in the US is not taxed.

We are not yet actively paying the tax, but the FCC regulations have been in place since June '06 and the day is approaching. Unless Congress does something to block it. From what I have read I agree that the current regulations do not affect P2P VoIP like Skype to Skype.

Satyagraha

[elronxenu]

Time for some peaceful resistance, I think.

Misleading summary. VoIP is not illegal in India

[Puchku]

The article clearly points out that VoIP is not illegal in India. What is illegal is the BPO and KPO industry using unlicensed ISP's to carry their VoIP calls. The BPO and KPO industry racks up millions of minutes a month, and the goverment naturally wants them to comply with the law, so that they can be taxed. VoIP is not illegal, is it regulated, and taxed, and if a large company tries to avoid paying that tax, then well, they will be penalized. This DOES NOT affect home users at all. We can use Skype fo

'Internal' communications

[GryMor]

It wasn't clear from the article, but does this apply to a companies internal VOIP system that doesn't use ANY service provider? Ignoring call centers for the moment, what does this mean for VOIP connections that don't (and can't) touch POTS, don't cost anything, and are purely software?

People people people

[zappepcs]

VoIP in some countries as well as MP3 audio are just the kind of thing that upsets the apple cart. The apple cart being the status quo tax base. When governments and businesses see that there previously standard revenue stream is being bypassed, they simply have to 'change the laws' to make sure their pork barrel is still fat with money.

The point being: Each new invention based on the Internet will cause trouble somewhere if not everywhere. When a tax revenue is removed, they will move to create a new one o

No freaking way...

[(H)elix1]

As someone from the US who gets sent on trips to help partners in India, this would be insane. Depending on the network, calls ranged from $7-11 USD a minute, setting a company record when we got the bill since the blackberry seemed to hop to a new network every other call. I'll use VOIP via Google talk to chat with my family - without that, I'll be damned if they get me on site again. Penny wise, pound foolish. It was bad enough to pay $20 USD a day at the hotels for net access to do VOIP....

Re:

[(H)elix1]

Nope - it was closer to 300-500rs a minute. Granted, that was on a mobile phone and not a land line, but the phone bill was high enough I got to grovel to our CFO - two months was more than what I paid for a down payment on my house. Part of the problem was I had a US SIM chip and not a local SIM. Things were much better when I returned with an unlocked mobile.

(the base rate for tmobile [t-mobile.com] is 1.60 USD, ~3 USD/minute roaming. Things got scary, however, if you wandered off the 'partner' network and the black

In a way, it makes sense....

[ravee]

The VoIP could very well be the death of the telecommunication industry in India. Consider this fact - a call to the US can be made just for Rs 5 a minute using VoIP compared to Rs 20 a minute using land line or even more using mobile phone. And over the years, the quality of voice in VoIP has significantly improved.

The booming telecommunication industry in India is going through a flux and will not be able to bear this setback of allowing VoIP calls which will cut into their margins unless of course they

Come on .. Misleading Title!

[sunsrin]

This is only for BPOs who might be using internet telephony without paying taxes to the Govt. FYI - Yahoo has been given the license to offer Internet telephony in India. Read here [infoworld.com] . They will be partnering with VSNL to route their calls.

Voice over Frame Relay

[dindi]

When they make Voice Over IP illegal, you can switch to Voice over Frame Relay.

I in fact know a call center that specifically has the technology, to avoid the proposed Voice over IP law in Costa Rica. Usually law makers are shortsighted with technology, so there is always a way around. :)

Re:

[slashnik]

Can you then do frame relay over IP

Re:

[dindi]

U can do ip over frame relay.

Technically you can encapsulate anything and tunnel it thru ip :) so i guess, why not, but then at the end you are using voice over frame relay over ip, so it's like.. hmm :) technically the same as just VOIP :)

VoIP is more than Skype, Yahoo Voice, etc...

[my1wong]

Sigh....

You think the BPO call centers in India are answering your De*l support calls using Skype or Yahoo? Oh, please....

Most large call centers are using IP PBX "architecture". By IP WAN and QoS, the call center in India and the call center in US become one big "virtual" call center under one virtual IP PBX. Yes, there is voice traffic flowing between US and India, but that's not Skype or Yahoo voice or MSN.

These IP PBX brands include Avaya, Cisco, Nortel, and many others. I bet these are "licens

Re:In classic Slashdot form...

[Atlantis-Rising]

The short answer: Tax money. VIOP providers were not paying it, so the government is making them illegal.

It's bad because..

[PopeRatzo]

Maybe India banned it because they can't stand that damn echo you hear when you talk to somebody.

The place I work is all VOIP and I try to avoid the phones if I can.

Re:In classic Slashdot form...

[stoolpigeon]

they aren't banning it. they are banning the use of voip that comes from outside the country, doesn't pay taxes, isn't bound by Indian law, etc.

Re:In classic Slashdot form...

[jrockway]

And that's exactly why we have strong cryptography.

Government: You're illegally calling people.
You: No, that's e-mail.
Government: Oh.

Re:

[Ironsides]

Here's the revised Government with half a brain:

Government: You're illegally calling people.
You: No, that's e-mail.
Government:You're sending e-mail for 8 hours a day and sending and receiving the same amount in email bytes?

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

Or even:

Government: You're illegally calling people.
You: No, that's e-mail.
Government: Prove it, or go to jail.
You: ...er...
Government: Bye bye!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the British Government:

Government: You're illegally calling people.
You: No, that's e-mail.
Government:Turn over the cryptographic keys so that we know it's email, or spend the next 30 years in jail.

(that's right, in UK it's a crime to not turn over your cryptographic keys/passes.)

Re:

[jrockway]

> (that's right, in UK it's a crime to not turn over your cryptographic keys/passes.)

Who mentioned the UK?

The solution is to not know your own passphrase (as per OTR's encryption).

Re:

[Gordonjcp]

(that's right, in UK it's a crime to not turn over your cryptographic keys/passes.)

Except that like so many laws in the UK, it's been proved to be unenforceable, and is therefore ignored.

Re:

[jonwil]

Actually, its more like having a wall safe and the government forcing you to open that safe.

The solution (at least for interactive communication such as voice, video, IM, IM file transfer, remote computer access/control etc) is to implement a system where providing the key is impossible. The 2 ends of the link (such as VoIP software and a VoIP server or whatever) would communicate and generate a shared secret key via Diffie-Hellman key exchange or similar. Then this shared secret key would be used to encryp

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

Then the government throws you in jail until it can forcibly decrypt the datastream, which is, if you're using a good cryptosystem, never.

That's why the british law is on the books- to prevent people from using systems exactly like this. Let's say you're charged with murder, but the evidence is locked up in this cryptostream. You can provide the keys, and have the government jail you for murder, or you can not provide the keys, the government, having no evidence, will drop the murder charge, and slam you wi

Re:

[AKAImBatman]

Frankly, it's nothing at all like self-incrimination, either legally or logically.

It's exactly like self-incrimination, both legally and logically. Law enforcement in the U.S. can seize the keys under a subpoena, but there is no requirement that you tell them where they are. In fact, the fifth amendment specifically allows someone not to answer any question for fear of self-incrimination. The question, "Where/What are the encryption keys?" would fall under that umbrella as it would potentially provide evide

Re:

[AKAImBatman]

However, in the case of an encrypted communication, the police are in possession of the evidence, they simply cannot read it. You are obligated to help them do that

That is out and out incorrect. Under U.S. law, you have a right to remain silent. Period, end of story, not a single thing more to add. You don't need to explain any knick knacks to them, you don't have to give them your keys to your house, and you sure as hell don't have to give them a codebook to your coded diary just because the cops think you

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

Sure. You have the right to remain silent... and the court has the right to throw you in jail for the rest of your life for contempt of court, and it has done so. The court has shown itself perfectly willing to impose a rolling punishment for contempt- i.e., they throw you in jail, and every year they bring you out and ask you if you're willing to comply. If you're not, they throw you back in.

Given that the original intention was presumably to put you in jail in the first place, you win nothing by refusing

Re:

[zcat_NZ]

Sure. You have the right to remain silent... and the court has the right to throw you in jail for the rest of your life for contempt of court, and it has done so. The court has shown itself perfectly willing to impose a rolling punishment for contempt- i.e., they throw you in jail, and every year they bring you out and ask you if you're willing to comply. If you're not, they throw you back in.

Just in case anyone doubts the truth of this, Kay Skelton is locked away as I post on a contempt of court charge. Si

sigh

[Nasarius]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

Re:In classic Slashdot form...

[Nasarius]

Irrelevant. Read the damn Constitution. It only protects you from being forced to testify against YOURSELF. Skelton is in jail for refusing to give information about SOMEONE ELSE.

example

[Nasarius]

Let's say we have Person A, Person B, and Person C. They have all committed a murder, hidden the body, and the police have them in custody, but without enough evidence to prove the case. Person A has that information only in his head. Person B wrote it down and hid it somewhere. Person C put it in his computer in an encrypted file.

Are you now seriously suggesting that the authorities are allowed to force Person C to turn over evidence, but not A or B?

Re:

[EllisDees]

>Just in case anyone doubts the truth of this, Kay Skelton is locked away as I post...

Yes, in New Zealand, not in the US. You cannot be forced to incriminate yourself in this country. Sure, they can intercept your communications, but if they cannot decipher them, tough luck!

Re:

[AKAImBatman]

Sure. You have the right to remain silent... and the court has the right to throw you in jail for the rest of your life for contempt of court, and it has done so.

They cannot throw you in jail for exercising your fifth amendment rights. And I dare you to prove otherwise.

The Kay Skeleton issue that someone used as an example is two fold:

1. It's a New Zealand case, not a U.S. case.
2. Fifth amendment rights are narrowly defined. Since the issue is finding a child who is separated from his parents (and potential

Re:

[svallarian]

No no no, these are indian tech support we're talking about here. You know they can't say ANYTHING without spitting out an entire paragraph response to the simplest question like
"What is your name?"

So the bytes would be waaaay off.

Re:

[g1zmo]

Me: I like to keep my email bytes uniformly sized. It makes them flow through the tubes much more smoothly and prevents clogging.

Government: But it's unintelligble noise, suspiciously like untaxed VOIP calls to Osama.

Me: Ummm....and it prevents kiddy porn too.

Government: Well in that case, someone ought to sponsor a bill right away. Good work, citizen.

Re:

[egr]

Government: He's illegally calling people. Get him! You: No, that's e-mail. Government: He's sending e-mail. Get him!

Re:

[salesgeek]

In other words: they are going censor the internet because they can't tax a foreign company. Nice.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words: they are going censor the internet because they can't tax a foreign company. Nice.

The United States does that also. [wikipedia.org]

The difference is, the Indian politicians are having a discussion and planning and what not. The US politicians just slipped the law into a "terrorism" bill at 9:30 p.m. the day before it got voted on, without discussion.

So if you live in the US, don't get to upset with the Indian government. The Indians are probably more free than we are.

Re:

[Archfeld]

They are also attempting to ensure that all relevant emergency information is available to a call center should the need arise...Hard for 911 to find you if your call is routed via Uzbekistan, while you are in Auckland. There is also the issue of maintenance costs which are derived from licensee fee's.

Re:

[Mac Degger]

"They are also attempting to ensure that all relevant emergency information is available to a call center should the need arise"

Why is there a need to co-opt a system like that? We didn't have it before and we did fine. If I was paranoid, I'd say it had to do with the monitoring they're putting in place (location, remote turning on of microphones on mobiles in standby mode). Even not being paranoid I think it's strange...they want to add all these features which we don't really need/want but still have to p

Re:In classic Slashdot form...

[Maxo-Texas]

It used to be very expensive to build phone lines so they charged to make phone calls.

Since they charged a large amount of money, it was convenient to put a tax on that charge.

VoIP is basically free. If you want to pay someone for higher quality you can but there are so many ways to talk via voice over the internet now it's insane. I can't see how the indian government is going to do this against private individuals any more than they can stop porn, drugs, sex chat, etc.

I think they can make businesses use taxable voip, but data is data for private people.

Re:

[thej1nx]

Basically telephony in India is government run. In short any payment you make for making phone calls international or otherwise, counts towards what is a major revenue for the government. The government has already made substantial investment in the telephonic infrastructure as well, to simply abandon it.

Now enters the Internet into the picture. It is much much cheaper, and since you are already paying your broadband bill anyways, calls are virtually free. Which means the public and businesses stop using

Re:only donkey dongs use VOIP!

[Anonymous Coward]

There needs to be something like a math problem presented as a slightly distorted image whenever you try to post on Slashdot. That way only those with reasonable intelligence can post.

Re:

[MMC Monster]

Yeah. I could just imagine having to solve quadratic equations or such. It would certainly be an interesting study to see what happens the the number and quality of posts.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

There needs to not be anonymous posting on slashdot. That way only those worth hearing from can post.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

As well as all those who recognize that it is a ghostbusters quote.

Re:Network neutrality

[Atlantis-Rising]

This has absolutely nothing to do with network neutrality. This has to do with companies that are doing business with Indian companies not paying Indian taxes.

That is what is making the Indian government pissed. They are not trying to restrict VOIP for the hell of it. They just want what any government wants- to regulate it and tax it, and if they can't, to make it illegal and then extract fines from it.

Re:

[Nataku564]

Why not tax instant messaging then ... I mean, thats communicating information across the internet too.

ZOMG! People exchanging ideas! This is bad, they may get smart and overthrow our corrupt government!

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

Because, according to the article (which is detail sparse), these companies are being paid for providing this service. The companies are not remitting the propper taxes, acquiring the propper licenses, etc, etc. How hard is this for some people to understand?

Re:

[Nataku564]

The article doesn't mention whether it was a paid service or not. I get the feeling that free skype users (the ones that don't bridge to telephone) will be out of luck just as much as the ones who pay to talk to landlines.

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

Then you were not reading the article. Quoth the article:

The government move, when implemented, will fulfil a long-pending demand of internet service providers (ISPs). Internet Service Providers Association of India president Rajesh Chharia said: "It is essential that the government seeks this undertaking from call centres as these foreign service providers do not possess the requisite licences as mandated by the Government of India for Indian ISPs."

Once this proposal is implemented, the government, in case

Re:

[Atlantis-Rising]

No, I realized what he meant the first time, and he (and you) are still wrong. This has nothing to do with neutrality of networks. It has to do with taxation and regulation of international businesses, plain and simple. The fact that it has to do with the internet is purely incidental.

Re:

[Kadin2048]

It makes a lot of offshoring more difficult, too. A lot of callcenter operations use VOIP in order to connect the center back to the U.S. Lack of VoIP could really change the balance of advantages away from BTO stuff in India. (Perhaps in favor of the Philippines or some other Asian countries with substantial English-speaking populations.) I can't imagine anyone choosing to use the POTS system if they didn't have to, particularly if the load is basically constant and predictable.

Can't say I'm disappointed.

Re:

[The Cydonian]

There are other places (e.g., Philippines, Malaysia) that meet those requirements

Malaysia (and Singapore) regularly outsource call center jobs to India. Should know; just got off the phone with someone from the National Kidney Foundation.

I think this VoIP move by the Indian government reflects the reasons why call centre offshoring there has been a failure

And yet, salaries are rising rapidly back in Hyderabad; folks getting 50% or a 100% raise is not unheard of. A top job in an Accenture in Singapor

Also,

[The Cydonian]

India is really a pretty xenophobic place, generally hostile to most everything non-Indian.

The thing that really struck me the most in "new" India, all those malls and food courts and stuff, is how prevalent Chinese food is, among other things. Granted, Indian Chinese isn't quite Chinese as I know :-D, but I've travelled to Hong Kong and throughout most parts of South East Asia, and I don't think I've seen the reverse happening.

India's opening up faster than most ex-pat Indians realize.

India is deeply conservative and fearful of change.

We've got the world's largest twenty-something population. Half the country is my age, 24.

The Indian educational system penalises innovation and creative thinking.

Which of the twenty-seven or so educational systems are you talking about? If it is the CBSE or the ICSE, then you'd be hardpressed to explain why they follow it in some schools here in Singapore, or in West Asia and southern Africa, in Tanzania, Kenya and, I understand, South Africa. The educational system per se isnt soul-ripping, but the competition is; never, however, doubt the intent of some of the better designed systems.

Indian politics are always parochial. If a proposal doesn't somehow poke a stick in the eye of those bastards in the next village/city/state/country, then it's not going to pass.

:-)

I take it that you haven't worked with these lobbyists? The problem with Indian politics is that it's a huge superset of local politics glued together somehow under the Indian tricolour; the difficulty is in having a larger picture, or in convincing folks to look beyond their backyards. I doubt anybody is malicious though, in their intent; there is a lot of good work being done, albeit slowly. I think we're about to hit the corner in a year or so when folks start demanding action at a national level as well.

Tough work, but there are reasons to be optimistic. All is not lost.

Re:

[dvNull]

Some broad generalisations that I will stand behind:

* India is really a pretty xenophobic place, generally hostile to most everything non-Indian.
* India is deeply conservative and fearful of change.
* The Indian educational system penalises innovation and creative thinking.
* Indian politics are always parochial. If a proposal doesn't somehow poke a stick in the eye of those bastards in the next

Bloody nonsense...

[bayankaran]

You have no idea about India. And if you are an Indian you are seriously misinformed.

India is really a pretty xenophobic place, generally hostile to most everything non-Indian.

India is a country with 5000 plus year old civilization which produced 3 of the major religions in this world. India has the plurality your narrow mind is unable to grasp. There are xenophobic Indians, just like there are xenophobic Russians, Australians, Americans (or name your ethnic group).

India is deeply conservative and

Re:

[raju1kabir]

• America is really a pretty xenophobic place, generally hostile to most everything non-American
• America is deeply conservative and fearful of change.
• The American educational system penalises innovation and creative thinking.
• American politics are always parochial. If a proposal doesn't somehow poke a stick in the eye of those bastards in the next village/city/state/country, then it's not going to pass.

Sorry, I don't live in the USA, so your clever riposte falls a little flat. But I've worked there too,

Re:

[FishWithAHammer]

And finally you Slashdot editors; do show some signs that you have some brain by not ranking absolute trash as insightful just because Indians have stolen some American jobs.

"Have some brain" yourself - moderators, not editors, called it "insightful."

Re:

[abaweja]

This doesn't affect internal voice links connecting indian and abroad offices. Also it doesn't affect Yahoo, Skype, MSN etc free service usage by companies or home users.
Its like if a VOIP service provider sells a service to anyone in europe they have to pay VAT there, same is true for India but they are not doing it. In India lergest basic telephony and mobile phone providers and Internation Long distance backbone providers are providing VOIP services also. So it not like AT&T lobbying against VOIP se

Re:

[The Cydonian]

I hope the backwater Indian government continues to tax "outsiders" in their own provincial way so that these stupid companies will learn their lessons.

Let's just say that beyond a certain point, you can't ignore a billion people's worth of a market anymore. Especially if they're actively buying tech goods, and are looking out heavily yada yada.

Re:Funny as hell

[smallpaul]

Actually, when I read this, I couldn't help but laugh at all of the dumb companies that thought that they could save money by investing in [India]

There is no question that companies are saving (and making) money by investing billions in India. A few VOIP taxes are not going to change that.

[India] is still, essentially, a third world country.

Nobody said otherwise. India is a developing economy. You have a very strange understanding of economics if you think that you cannot make money in a developing economy. Look at the bushfulls of money that have been made in the last 50 years in (e.g.) Korea, Saudi Arabia, Ireland, China, etc.

They should've realized that a few McDonald's and a rudimentary grasp of English doesn't make a country a first world country, (a good place to do business).

Rapidly growing economies are precisely where you go to do business.

I hope the backwater Indian government continues to tax "outsiders" in their own provincial way so that these stupid companies will learn their lessons.

America's backwater government also taxes "outsiders" in a provicial way. Haven't you heard about Bush's protectionism: http://www.progress.org/2003/trade12.htm [progress.org]

I think that India has a LONG way to go before it should be considered as any kind of technological powerhouse, and I think that this is a strong sign that that is true.

India's software industry alone is worth $20 billion. Tata infotech took 23 years to make its first billion and 23 months to make its second. Is that a powerhouse comparable to the American industry? Probably not. Does it matter? India's tech industry is strong, healthy and growing, no matter how much you might wish otherwise. Save your schadenfreude for someone who deserves it. You might want to read this to learn what's really going on in India: http://www.economist.com/business/PrinterFriendly. cfm?story_id=5300960 [economist.com]

Re:

[ashwinds]

I agree that India does throw up the occassional barriers of trade when it sees some revenue opportunities subverted. the provincial attitude could well be our inheritance from our being a colony of a "first world" nation, the Brits. But I cant understand how a "first world country" can put of barriers of entry of people in the form of demeaning and draconian visa policies and pretend it encourages business. In the garb of protection of intellectual rights, patents have been awarded for even common knowled

Re:

[antonyb]

How true. If I had mod points I'd mod you up.

Disclaimer: I'm not Indian, but I do live in India. I've run software projects and managed dev teams on most continents, and the team I run here is

1. as creative and able to problem-solve as any other, and
2. far more hard-working than any other place I've worked

Its also a wonderful country to live in; in fact after Australia & Sweden this is the country I've most enjoyed my time in.

I really think that only by spending a few years away from your home country

Re:

[lixee]

I mean, last time I check, they were not even consider an Islamic country.

Last time I checked, most Americans wouldn't locate India on a map. I don't honestly expect them to tell an Arab from a Farsi, or a Sikh from a Pakistani.