TeliaSonera To Charge Extra For VoIP in Spain and Sweden | Hacker News Reader

TeliaSonera To Charge Extra For VoIP in Spain and Sweden

arcticstartup.com

37 pointsalt_31 comments

Given the obscene data rates that mobile operators charge across Europe (specifically when roaming) one can always only hope that there is a WiFi network near.

The degrading / delaying of VoIP traffic (and other rt data traffic) does even happen with some fixed line operators in Europe - though not with Skype - they then call it P2P traffic and tell stories about file sharing etc. Had that with a provider in South-France ... if you pay us 10-times the rate we stop the fiddling with your traffic...

I guess this move from TeliaSonera again shows that like with other industries self-regulatory approaches do not work at least with industries where you have regional monopolies / oligopolies, high barriers for entry and a mindset of used car salesmen (no offence) across the industry.

We need to regulate this as well as the fixed line market or we're soon back at $200+ p.m. for (usable) fixed lines and similar increases for usable mobile access - they advertise fiber access here in the UK for $40 per month but give you a 5-20GB p.m. data volume (how many minutes is that good for). They call that fair use - but all those rules do of course not apply to the costly extra services they sell themselves.

It's high time to regulate the mobile providers with regards to data / IP services - earlier regulations regarding roaming in Europe have shown that they otherwise do not see any limits in ripping off their customers.

And someone should explain to those in charge of oversight of this industry that Cisco's promotional material (that showed exponential growth in mobile traffic and would turn all mobile provider latest next year unprofitable and is so happily cited in that industry when it comes down to regulations) is just that - promotional material to sell their network equipment and not facts.

There was some recent EU regulation for reducing data roaming costs, that should eventually help. With 3G so popular, public WiFi access points have become very rare

I'm currently a TeliaSonera customer in Finland, and have been since mid-90s. But such dirty tricks make me strongly consider switching away.

In some parts of Europe you might already using WiFi when doing data traffic via 3G (and charged at 3G rates) - mobile operators have been going into wholesale agreements with WiFi networks since some time or have started to build their own WiFi networks.

You're right public / open WiFi access is now rather rare (to limit anonymous access) - but many restaurants / bars / pubs etc do provide free access (suggested use of a VPN here). And there are by now quite a few WiFi providers that provide WiFi subscription with international access.

A positive exception from extra-charging is BT (in the UK) that provide you unlimited WiFi access across the country and free international with the FON network (and at reduced rates with other European providers). You have to be a BT fixed line subscriber for that free access.

You can see a map of global FON WiFi coverage at http://maps.fon.com/

You're mixing concerns when you bring in roaming. It's really a different beast, not very liberalised, so old, entrenched more-or-less monopolies control this and disrupting is difficult.

As for fixed lines, there's a reasonable amount of competition. Multiple providers give you affordable, uncapped connections for well under $200 (I pay £22.50/month). Unfortunately, they've got traffic shaping in effect in "prime time" which is a bit annoying, but I can get an unshaped connection for £32/month from another provider, so I'll switch when my current contract expires.

As for mobile, my current provider has uncapped mobile usage (I don't know how they'll detect if I connect a laptop, but that's the terms) for £10/month. I haven't tried doing VoIP over it, and don't really care, although Skype happily logs in.

I am a swedish Telia customer, and have been one since '08. Their service has always been top notch so I had every intention of signing on for another two years with them.

And just like that, I lost all my confidence in them and will go where else from now on.

Yeah, I think this is the way to go - if they experience a major loss in customers, maybe they realize that this is a stupid idea.

But you need to be REALLY vocal about your reasons to have any chance of them actually being aware of this.

If you just leave to another provider, TeliaSonera will have zero clue why you did that. Even if a lot of people do it.

Agreed. Though the cynic in me wonders if they even care to track such data.

It has pretty much always been against the terms of service to use VoIP on your mobile data plan. At least for the vast majority of service providers in Sweden, just that it hasn't been enforced (my understanding of it at least). The only thing that changes now is that it is allowed (but with a fee attached to it).

I guess the problem stems from that competition has made mobile data plans too cheap and thus have been subsidized by regular calls. If the customers take advantage of this and use VoIP instead the service providers are in trouble.

Which kind of makes sense. The only reason you'd ever want VoIP on your phone is so that you can skip the middleman (who is the one that pays for the network your call goes through, VoIP or not).

No, i use skype on my mobile because Telia (and all other carriers) have bad reception at my apartment.

Then presumably you use Skype over your WiFi-connection, not Telias cellular network? That's skipping the middleman, although not the in the sense of the GP.

When at Home, yes, but since i am allready running skype at Home it is easier just continuing to use it when I am out and about. So I am also using it on their cell network.

Given the huge margin on mobile voice minutes, I'm surprised that it's taken this long for one of the operators to try this. Anecdotally, other operators in Europe have silently degraded VoIP traffic in the hope that the better quality GSM traffic will prevail but this is taking things to the next level.

If this does continue, expect Neelie Kroes to start getting involved which will probably see them going back to the silent degradation model.

source for the silent degradation model?

Time for some EU-wide regulation here! Should not be legal to charge your customers depending on what content they download, with their connection. When you rent a X mbit line you should get that and nothing less.

You never get an "x mbit" slot on any network regardless of whether it is wired or not (as a regular customer) - thus you always get less than that.

Also, the main purpose of a mobile network is to be able to make calls. Thus calls must have a priority (something that probably will get (since people are beginning to solely rely on their cellphone for all calls (including emergency calls)), if it isn't already, mandated by law).

And regardless, the service providers must recoup their costs somehow. Since voice by itself isn't high-bandwidth paying only for the bandwidth would make data plans much more expensive, is that preferable?

While the notion of a completely content-agnostic network is neat wireless networks have much tougher constraints on them and can easily be overloaded, in practice you must have priorities and somehow you must pay for those priorities.

"Also, the main purpose of a mobile network is to be able to make calls."

That is debatable, and up to your customers :-)

Actually its uncommon that I call/text on the mobile network, however, I'm always online and use the services I have there - e.g. iMessage or email.

I think mobile carriers should realize this and start creating subscriptions for it - they can try to make obscure rules for using their network, but in the end people will use it in the way they find it convenient.

Although I very seldom make calls (or receive them) and use the data plan extensively I still consider phone calls the main purpose of a mobile network, even though the ratio of calls and data usage are probably less than 1% for calls.

Why? Because when trying to get hold of someone calling/texting them is the, by far, most effective way imaginable. The same goes for being contacted of course.

I can't mail even an tech-savvy person and expect him to automatically receive that in his phone, especially if he is on a vacation. The phone is the last thing you turn off.

There is no equivalent technology as commonly used as a cellphone. Mail and perhaps facebook are probably the most successful ways to contact a person on the internet but it is frustratingly inferior to a phone call or text message when there haven't been an established contact earlier and a quick response time is valued.

That alone makes the primary purpose of the mobile network to server calls and text messages in my eyes.

And that is even without taking into consideration the case of emergencies - and that use case alone is important enough to create laws in order to protect and ensure quality.

So even though the last month I probably had an all time low of call-time (where I think I talked for about 15 minutes in total (outgoing and in going)) I still view my data plan as an accessory and that the main purpose of the mobile network is calls and texts. And I'm having trouble imagining that this will change any time soon, regardless of how often people actually make phone calls.

My phone behaviour is the same as yours (<30 min call time/month; lots of data usage). I see your point. My opinion is slightly different: turn off data connection and I'll leave my phone home; turn off voice and I'll happily tote the phone around and use it all day. So for me, voice is the accessory.

What you describe is how to reach other people (as necessitated by them), not your own behaviour.

You make a great point: Mobile carriers could differentiate themselves from other wireless providers (such as Clearwire in the US) or from each other, by accelerating VOIP traffic instead of degrading it. HTTP degradation could automatically adjust on an overloaded node to make room for VOIP.

I'm curious that a similar movement has not been started over something like whatsapp, in my experience, the vast amount of my friends (in the 20-25 year old region) use Whatsapp almost exclusively, and almost always using a 3g connection. It means they have to pay only for data.

I assume whatsapp would be harder to detect and stop, but its a wonder that mobile vendors are not up in arms.

The day is coming when someone will arrive with a new type of carrier, Data. That is all. calls,sms everything is handled through the web.

Whatsapp uses XMPP, so trivial to intercept and block. I think it has to do with challenging BlackBerry and BBMs dominance in that market.

I don't understand why Whatsapp don't have an online offering for the computer. I prefer to "text" off my computer if I am working there all day. With a decent input device, I think people who spend any length of time on a computer during the day. I think whatsapp would really benefit from a web offering.

Also as an aside to this, I presume whatsapp does not allow just anyone to connect via XMPP, what would be much better again, would be if my IM account could connect to whatsapp.

Im curious how they will actually implement this. Block everything not going over port 80 or 443 and also block many other types of services? Deep packet inspection? New voice services and apps turn up all the time.

There is no way they can block "voice data" (their double speak not mine) without also bloking lots of other services, as collateral damage.

A voice stream is fairly easy to detect. Not many applications have a constant, symmetric flow of data. They don't have to keep you from establishing the connection in the first place, just cut it off or degrade it once detected.

There are ready to go solutions for that identifying specific applications (VoIP would be one of them) down to the provider of the solution (e.g Facebook, Skype). And yes this is done via DPI plus patterns etc. So it would not really matter (on the long run) if you would e.g. tunnel that on port 80.

Most providers of such solutions by now fully integrate with the Telco's management platforms similar to "plug-ins". Current market estimates for these platforms (policy servers) and DPI are expected to grow to more than $5B over the next years.

In Telco environments these things are generally covered under traffic management and the acronyms PCC or PCRF.

I think TeliaSonera is using OpeNet in some of their countries since quite some time for that at least with 4G.

I'm not sure how the technology works - is some of the spectrum reserved for voice-calls, such that there is a legitimate traffic shaping reason to want to keep voice traffic in its place?

Not in 4G networks. Everything's data in 4G, and voice traffic is just another data stream (with a special use case).

The only reason they're doing this is that they're terrified of becoming a dumb pipe provider.

Well, also they're not 4G yet. What's the story on 3G?

Might be preemptive then, they're aggressively building out LTE in Sweden (or at least here in Stockholm)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com