The dispute over "WeChat charging fees": How does public opinion manifest?
Release Time:
2013-04-08 19:02
Source:
China Youth Daily
A nearly half-month-long WeChat charging debate, widely questioned by the public, once again became a hot topic among guests at the Boao Forum for Asia. Facing the question of "whether to charge or not," all stakeholders avoided direct answers and instead talked about "OTT services causing increased network burdens is a global problem," "WeChat should be a win-win for all parties"... What exactly is hidden behind the widespread and ongoing "WeChat charging" controversy?
Is "WeChat charging" a misinterpretation or a misguidance?
"I have retired from the position of Chairman of China Mobile for a year now, and since retirement, I no longer discuss China Mobile matters publicly," said Wang Jianzhou, Director of China Mobile's Strategic Decision Advisory Committee and former Chairman, before his speech. "OTT (over-the-top services that bypass operators to develop various video and data services based on the open internet) has increased the network burden on operators, and the traffic fees collected by operators cannot cover this expenditure. This is a global problem, and both sides should engage in negotiation and dialogue."
For nearly half a month, the question of "whether WeChat charges fees" has sparked various public doubts. The claim that telecom operators arbitrarily raised prices for "WeChat charging" has been continuously amplified.
"Today's free service is for tomorrow's charging," said Chang Xiaobing, Chairman of China Unicom.
China Mobile Chairman Xi Guohua even remarked, "WeChat is scarier than China Telecom and China Unicom!"
Regarding the operators' firm stance on "charging," Tencent's response has been puzzling. Tencent Chairman Ma Huateng responded within less than a month, stating that operators charging WeChat is "impossible," "whether to charge is not yet determined," and "WeChat's commercialization exploration has just begun."
Tencent President Liu Chiping said at the Boao Forum: "WeChat's basic services are free, and we will seek a win-win business model among three parties for value-added services. The rumors about charging 0.5 yuan per message or 0.1 yuan per voice message are not credible."
Over the past half month, explanations, speculations, and even versions of charging related to WeChat fees have been rampant and mixed, deepening public suspicion.
"WeChat charging is a normal commercial behavior between enterprises," some "insiders" explained, saying that WeChat charging refers to operators charging Tencent, and interpreting it as charging users is a misreading.
In fact, from the initial promotion of plans to charge users, to the defense that "users will not bear excessive costs," behind the many "noises," is it deliberate misguidance by relevant parties or misunderstanding by consumers?
"The WeChat dispute is essentially a profit distribution issue between companies, and using charging as a way to test public opinion is a so-called PR 'technique'," said Dai Hong, Vice President of the Hainan Public Relations Association. Compared with the impacted SMS and voice services, the controversy caused by telecom operators "is definitely not just about collecting money."
Win-win for all parties, what is sabotaging it?
"In the new wave of mobile internet, an environment that encourages competition and technological innovation is needed; otherwise, no one can benefit from this technological revolution," said Wu Ying, Chairman of Zhongze Jiameng Investment Fund. He noted that WeChat is actually building a technological innovation ecosystem that requires support from operators.
"The WeChat charging dispute is a battle of interests; WeChat's popularity directly harms the commercial interests of the three major operators," economist Ma Guangyuan said. The so-called "WeChat occupying signaling resources causing network communication paralysis" is just a "blatant excuse" by operators.
Although the three major telecom operators had early deployments of mobile internet-based services like Mobile Fetion, Unicom Wo Chat, and Telecom Yi Chat, these services collapsed under the impact of WeChat.
"I don't understand why they want to suppress WeChat by charging fees. If Fetion were more convenient and faster than WeChat, who would still use WeChat?" said Haikou resident Gu Zhibin. The key is that the three major operators have become accustomed to making money through monopoly, "tying up" the "hands and feet" of innovation.
Wu Ying said: "WeChat is just one point; the real impact on operators' traditional business comes from the rapid development trend of mobile internet. Therefore, operators must change their business development model and engage in technological innovation."
According to statistics from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, SMS business growth in the first two months of this year was only 0.7% year-on-year, significantly lower than 7.6% in the same period last year, with ordinary users' SMS usage declining by as much as 10.6%.
Statistics from a network consulting agency show that during this year's Spring Festival, 11.1% of greeting messages were sent via WeChat, whereas a year ago, WeChat's share was almost negligible.
"Monopoly should not become an obstacle to technological innovation." At the Boao Forum for Asia, some guests expressed concern about the lack of necessary protection for technological innovation caused by the "WeChat charging" issue.
Chunhua Capital Chairman Hu Zuliu said Chinese companies need to achieve high growth through innovation. He emphasized that environment and systems have a greater impact on innovation than talent and capital.
How can public services better respect public opinion?
Some guests at the Boao Forum for Asia believe that in this "WeChat charging" debate, operators on one hand hold the "market economy" banner to demand charges, while on the other hand are eager to introduce "government intervention" to label the "charging" as "reasonable," which tests the regulatory capacity of government management departments.
"Public policy formulation requires government presence but must not overstep," said Dai Hong. For public policies like whether to charge 300 million people for WeChat, government departments should not "express opinions too frequently or intervene excessively," interfering with market behaviors that should be decided by free competition.
"Mistakes and consequences caused by government functional department interventions often become reasons for further government interference in the economy," economist Zhang Weiying said at the Boao Forum. When handling the relationship between government and market, "the government should not arbitrarily interfere with the market, especially in industrial development issues."
Relevant experts believe that some functional departments and local governments deliberately "leak information" and "test the waters" with public opinion before major livelihood policies are formulated and introduced, reflecting that the concept of "governing for the people" has not yet been fully implemented.
Chi Fulin, President of the China Development and Reform Institute, believes that the government must transform its public functions based on public demand, "pay attention to the reasonable distribution of vested interests, mobilize public participation, and implement the will of the people."
More than 300 million users are concerned: Does WeChat charge fees or not? There is still no answer. "Regarding such livelihood concerns, it is irresponsible for relevant parties to 'leak information' and 'test the waters,' and equally irresponsible to delay giving a direct response," said Li Jianbao, President of Hainan University.
The public WeChat platform of the Laundry and Dyeing Committee has also been established. As an important part of the "China Laundry Information Center" WeChat platform founded by the Laundry and Dyeing Committee, it will play an increasingly significant role in information dissemination. Keeping pace with the times and using the most advanced technological means to provide timely and authoritative industry information to colleagues in the national laundry and dyeing industry is the Laundry and Dyeing Committee's relentless pursuit!
Related Documents
undefined
Other News
2025.03.31
2025.03.19
2025.03.11
2025.03.10
2025.02.18
2025.02.18
Contact Information:
Hotline:
Address:
No. 46, Dongsi West Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing
Email:
China Laundry Information Center
Scan to Follow
China Business Laundry Committee
Scan to Follow
Laundry Encyclopedia
Scan to Follow
National Laundry Label Committee
Scan to Follow
China Business Vocational Appraisal
Scan to Follow
"China Laundry"
Scan to Follow
China Laundry Committee
Scan to Follow
China Business Laundry Committee
Copyright: China Commercial Federation Laundry Professional Committee
Beijing Public Network Security 11010102005379
Website Construction:China Enterprise Power Beijing