Richard Zhao Liang and Bill Campbell.

Although the worldwide VoIP market is booming and Skype has wooed millions of users, its road to China is not so bright as in other parts of the world, especially for revenue.
There are four kinds of VoIP services: phone to phone, phone to PC, PC to phone, PC to PC. In China, the phone to phone and phone to PC are clearly defined in law as the basic telecom services that no one besides these six services providers can provide: China Mobile, China Telecom, China Netcom, China Unicom, China Railcom, and China Satellite Com.).

The Ministry of Information Industry (MII), according to the notification no. 413(2005) on July 18, will continue to ban commercial PC-phone VoIP services, except for a trial at four cities countrywide: two for China Telecom at South China (Shenzhen and ShangRao, Jiangxi Province), while two for China Netcom at North China (Changchun, Jilin Province and Tai’an, Shandong Province). During the service trial by Shenzhen Telecom (a subsidiary company of China Telecom), the price of VoIP phone is about 2.5 cents (US) for both domestic and international calls.

A joint venture with TOM Software will not help Skype generate revenue in China. Skype would require a joint-venture with China Telecom or China Netcom. But without clear commercial benefits to those two fixed line carriers such a joint venture is unlikely to occur.

Skype’s only source of revenue from mainland China will only be from SkypeIn and SkypeOut originating from outside of China. And none of that revenue will flow to Skype’s Partner TOM Software. So the marketing approaches shown below might be suitable for Skype into China:

First, continuously fight for an increasing market share at IM and PC to PC market, competing against QQ, MSN, YIM, Google Talk, Sina UC, and NetEase PP.
Second, cooperate with those smartphone/handset/pda hardware vendors for solutions like USB-plugable PC phones.

Skype’s competitive advantages come from its voice quality, encryption, and ease of use.

See original post here.

Skype recently announced a new set of website buttons. This is the first real use of their expanded range of Skype tags. This allows you to integrate calls for text, voice, add a contact, file sharing, and voice messaging just by clicking on a website. It's convenient and provides lots of potential to create new communication solutions.

The latest transparent drop down is really rather neat. It provides all the different ways to contact me. It's quite an advancement. Follow the link to get yours.

Skype buttons can be used on your website, blog or even in your email signature to let other people contact you easily. Share Skype

Then I began thinking about it. What's different here? I took a closer look at comparing the old and new buttons.

This is an orginal early Skype call button:

The new buttons:

First time round I almost missed it. No it's really true. Skype has dropped "Skype" from all its buttons. Maybe they think the branding of the buttons is now so strong everyone gets it? Maybe they did some research and many people seeing these buttons on websites failed to understand their meaning? Perhaps I should be asking them first why they dropped "SkypeMe"?

I thought about this and my response is very much from the heart as a user. Asking questions now would ignore my judgement and reduce the impact of just blogging it. I can sum it up in one sentence. I don't want you to Call me I want you to Skype me.

Here's my logic: Skyping is a multi-dimensional communication tool. I want a Skype experience. That includes chat and voice messages and buddylists etc. I don't want you to call me. I'm not thinking "shooting the breeze" on a telephone. I was almost the first in the world to put a SkypeMe callto tag on a blog. I wore it as a revolutionary badge of honor. It was a statement and an invitation. It became part of our vocabulary - marketers and brand managers will know how utterly powerful that can be, when their brand enters consumer parlance.

In some countries "call me" is the thing you say when running down a hall when you don't have time to stop or be polite. It's not a call to action. By contrast Skype was defining behavior and providing a sense of access and urgency. You are here, you are on my site, here is my invitation. Add presence and the availablity info increases exponentially. From the Skype perspective, you had a unique brand property in Skypeme.

I thought I'd check with a couple of my buddies. Dina's comment summed it up for me.

"hmmm some of the new buttons are pretty nice to use with friends. Am not sure i would change the old SkypeMe button though for clients in an email signature .... it just seemed more business-like. Why have they removed 'Skype' from the call me tag? I kind of liked it .. it made me feel more on-the-edge, like i was using something special. I know it made many of my clients inquire about what Skype is ... and some even adopted it. Call me as a button is confusing too ... i already have my landline and mobile number in my email signature ... and i think i may confuse my clients with this additional Call Me button."

There are some schools of marketing that believe you only want the consumers saying the shortened name or using it as a verb. Did Xerox ever talk about anything other than copying? How did Miller Genuine Draft become MGD etc.? Here Skype has become a verb and we understand SkypeIn and SkypeOut and we now have a callto tag that says "Call Me". Is it just me or has it all gone flat? I can't see the hype or the excitement in Call me. And effectively, you are asking me to change my vocabulary again, having thus far carved a unique position in my mind. Competitors can come up with similar Call Me buttons - none could have used Skype Me. What then is your unique badge?

To make matters worse I watched an SBC commercial on television tonight. Guess what the tagline is? I don't have it perfect... the thrust was SBC "Beyond the Call". When I see it again or remember I will insert it.

I looked some more at the branding and the tags. They are all bigger than the smallest before. The drop down conceptually is really rather cool. Still how does it fit in with my email signature? Is it business like enough? The speech bubble may be alright for Skype staffers but really you must be kidding if you think I'm going to add it to my signature. So overall the selection is way down. Not as many colors and limted shapes. Which brings up two more issues.

Look at the drop down Call Me tag again. (Leave a VM if you want to test it). Now why did Skype fail to incorporate a download Skype link and tie it into the Skype Affiliate program at the same time. (BTW I think if you don't have Skype installed it automatically takes you to a download Skype page although I haven't confirmed this I know it is possible.)

Then think some more. This drop down tag is a perfect way to send a message to contact a company. Thus why isn't there a "SkypeUs" option. That suggests you are getting the generic number for the business. With the latest advances in Skype 1.4 for Windows with call forwarding there are many new ways to encourage Skype onto the business site. For business I could provide a whole set of encouraging options. Some others may want to put the "Call Us on Skype" as the button. Or "Call us Free on Skype". Both these last two promote a key benefit. It's free. The cost of developing them isn't very much. In the end downloads will tell which ones people want.

Thus we have some real progress in the implementation of Skype tags. The current group needs a quick expansion.

There are also options that could significantly enhance these tags. For example the tags could provide my picture, or a company logo. Whatever is put in the Skype profile. I'd also look more to the "buddylist" development. When or if we get headless clients. It could be those buddylists that we are simply scrolling though on a site to connect. Online by department etc.

So there you have it. A strong response. I'm not that interested in adopting these tags although I will use and incorporate the drop down tag. My strong response is a gut level one. I would have loved to debate it with whoever developed it. If I had I would have had more context to write this blog post around. As it is, there isn't a story that satisfies me this was the right move or well done. Questions I could be still waiting for answers on:

• Why do you want to adopt "Call me" rather than SkypeMe?
• What assortment should we have? How many variations? Where will it be used? By whom etc.
• Have you asked other users?
• How are you planning to promote the new tags?

It's quite possible I'm all wrong. Still I'm a Skyper for one and I still want a "SkypeMe" button. Is that too much to ask?

As a fellow free-market libertarian, and also a telecom blogger, I ought to be in agreement with Russell Roberts's critique of municipal "socialist" telecom networks.

Yet I'd like to offer, if not a contrary view, at least a different perspective on muni networks. I believe there are good and bad reasons to build them. But dismissal is not an option.

Yes, there's a clear transfer payment in favour of people who are unwilling to pay the current market-clearing price of a broadband connection. This is a net loss of utility to society, since the taxpayers whose money was confiscated had other, more pleasant, ways of spending this money in mind.

But there are also reasons to consider the free flow of information via telecom networks as a special and unique case. Information goods may not always conform to classical economic models, such as rivalrous consumption.

Let's take the market economics first.

The most important and unusual feature of telecom networks is that much of their value is option value — the ability to cater for unknown applications. E-mail, the Web, P2P, podcasting — none were there at the birth of the Internet. (Search for "End to end principle" and "Rise of the Stupid Network" for more data.) Unfortunately, the desire to price discriminate by a commercial supplier also serves to destroy option value, by limiting messages exchanged to those forms for which a tariff has been devised. The act of price discriminating network traffic and billing is also horiffically expensive. However, the desire to price discriminate is overwhelming, because of the billion-fold difference in value of different traffic types.

Telecom networks potentially generate huge consumer suplus. There is also an elemet of merely co-ordinated self-supply in a muni network. You do no harm by fixing your own blocked sink rather than calling a plumber. By engaging a general contractor, a locality effectlvely self-supplies itself ("unplugs its own data sink"), and retains the full consumer suplus. Again, because of the nature of networks, this isn't something users can do unilaterally.

There may be a co-ordination problem that corporations find hard to overcome. Most communications are geographicaly local, but there's little point in buying a videophone if insufficient of your friends and family across town — some of whom are in poorer households and districs — have one first. The natural unit of purchase of a telecom network may be greater than the single household, by the very nature of being a network.

Those poorer households are hard to cross-subsidise via market means, because the applications, where most of the money is spent, are separated from the connectivity. It's so far proven impossible to make the cross-subsidies between different connectivity buyers and application users work in an effective and fair manner, particularly when users are on different networks. The coordination and transaction costs are too high. (Would a universal service type of outcome arise from a pure market operation? It's debateable — at the very least, it's uncertain.)

Another co-ordination problem is a whole district can't easily sign up to a single network provider at once. The network provider has to engage in house-by-house sale. This is extremely expensive. A municipal network eliminates this transaction cost at a stroke.

There is also evidence that communications infrastructure generates new business and economic activity. This value is not captured by a traditional network operator (e.g. Google's billions of revenue do nothing for SBC or Comcast). But if the general public is the network owner, their interests do align. There is real evidence that the net gains from any form of increased data connectivity are large (see this for example). It is unproven, although not unreasonable, to hope that a forced municipal network will indeed have this effect. Unlike most infrastructure white-elephants, the almost infinite flexibility of a telecom network significantly lowers the risk of such a public enterprise.

Next, there is the practical issue of a market forming over rights of way for new facilities-based entrants. Early phone networks involved massive looms of wire down the street from multiple providers. Planning laws, zoning and access restrictions prevent a proper market forming in this bottleneck.

Finally, there are internal public costs of service delivery. A municiapl network enables those local services to be delivered at potentially lower cost. This is particularly true when access is universal and non-digital service delivery channels can be eliminated.

There is also a non-market side to this. The operation of our democracy requires ideas to flow freely. The increasing dominance of digital media may displace traditional analog alternatives. (When did you last go on a protest march? Read a political pamphlet?) The current experience in Canada with Telus, cutting off access to union web sites that offended it, suggests that allowing a tiny handful of corporations to control this access is potentially dangerous.

Lastly, the invisible nature of information goods and rights of way emprically seems to lead to markets in them more easily being manipulated via political means and regulatory capture. The public don't feel the pain of loss of the services they never got the experience, or the low prices they never saw advertised. The endless pleading and lobbying of telcos worldwide should be a warning signal of a market out of balance.

The trick is, of course, in balancing all these softer issues against the harder deadweight loss of a tax-backed transfer payment. But just because competition is good, it doesn't mean that co-operation (if sometimes coercive) is automatically worse.