South Korea wants to ban U.S. military from using VoIP

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you know you the technology. But you should stay away from the history and politics until you know it better.

US is not in South Korea for pure sake of protecting it. US is there to protect it's own interests. Just like China sacrificed more than a million of it's soldiers during the Korean war to protect it's interest in Korean pennisula against US, US wanted to and continue to protect it's own interest by using South Korea as a buffer zone to China and Russia.

You think US is protecting Korea? It was US (Teddy Roosevelt) who handed over Korea to Japan and stood by and watched while Japan raped and pillage the country and the continent.

Such protection in self interest is still practiced by US today. Do you think US is in Iraq for Iraqis protection? US troop is there for it's own interest. Or should I say current US regime's interest?

I'm well aware of U.S. History. It was amy favorite subject in school and I have dozens of books on WWII and the Korean war.

Of course, the U.S has some self-interest in South Korea. But if you're saying it's the U.S.'s job to police the world and for the U.S. taxpayer to foot 100% of the bill to stop communists, fascists, Islmo-Fascists, etc. then you're crazy.

South Korea has become a economic superpower under the protection of the U.S. Surely it can help fund the U.S. military which protects it from invasion.

>>It was US (Teddy Roosevelt) who handed over Korea to Japan and stood by and watched while Japan raped and pillage the country and the continent.

You can blame American isolationists, and liberal peace-niks (precursor to 1960 hippies) for not having the U.S. enter WWII earlier.

But even if we had, Germany was the primary focus at the beginning of WWII. Go read any history book and you will see this is true. General MacArthur complained that the Pacific theater wasn't getting enough U.S. military might. But the U.S. didn't have unlimited resources, so the European/African theater was the primary focus.

Thus, without the full might of the U.S, in the Pacific theater, Japan would have still conquered Korea. Japan had a formidable fleet. It also took awhile for the U.S war machine back home to kick into high gear and build more battleships, destroyers, etc.

Don't blame the U.S. for Japanese atrocities. That's like a bank robber blaming their government because the government can't help him find a decent paying job. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming others. Same is true for countries. Don't blame the world's problems on the U.S.

Again, yes, the U.S. has some self-interest in protecting South Korea, but that doesn't mean the U.S. should be S. Korea's "sugar daddy".

Don't you know Tom, the U.S. is the cuase for all the world's ills? Hitler - we created him because we won WW I and hurt German pride. Mussolini? Yep, we created him too by eating more pizza than Italians in Italy did. It hurt Mussolini's pride.

It's our fault too that there are nuclean weapons in this world. After all we invented it.

Poverty? Oh that's our fault too. Billions of dollars given to other countries be damned! We have the brightest scientists and have created more inventions in the 20th century than any other country and we still can't solve poverty?

Same goes for famine.

of course, the U.S. military is controlling the weather causing droughts around the world just so the American "bread basket" can earn mroe money in food exports.

yup, we can blame the U.S. for everything.

Last night I dented my Corvette yesterday when I backed into a low concrete barrier. Sure you coukld say it was my fault, but I'm blaming the U.S. They should have invented radar technology for every car to sense objects.

Excellent points Tom. Obviously the U.S. is not to blame. Don't listen to the poster. He doesn't know jack.

OK, so let me get this straight. You believe that because America has a base in a country that all of that country's laws and customs are moot? That any country that has the luck to get the benefits of the American armed forces should realize that all American visitors to that country deserve the right to have everything exactly the same as it is in America? So screw South Korea's needs and wants because you're being good enough to "protect" them from the crazy guy in the North? Too bad for their telco's and their laws...

Just because a country is democratic does not mean that it is exactly the same democratic process as America. Should I, as a Canadian, assume that if I'm in the US that the US will pay for any health care needs I may have while I'm there, cuz that's the way I have it in Canada? Let's take it a step further; does an Islamic Indian citizen working in the US helping out your economy have a right to practice Sharia law there, just cuz you're both democratic countries?

I think it's typical short sightedness of the far right to assume that anywhere an American goes they should get everything exactly the same as they do in America. This is exactly the reason that people all over the world have a certain amount of disdain for the west. The US isn't alone in this, but the US are the guys with the biggest guns and the most money so you become an easy target. If South Korea's government wants to ban VoIP as a law, that is their right (a right, I must add, that you are over there to protect if I follow your post correctly) to enact. Protection, world police, whatever your role, you have NO RIGHT to tell countries what their legislative bodies must or must not do.

Don't be a hypocrite. You can disagree with the law, but don't dress it up as "wahhh we're there for you so you should become us".

>>OK, so let me get this straight. You believe that because America has a base in a country that all of that country's laws and customs are moot?

I never said that. In fact, what I said was "You go ahead and block VoIP. Sure, it's un-democratic and it's not your free market policy that is typical of democracies. Sure it makes South Korea look more like communist North Korea, but hey, if you want to block VoIP, go right ahead. It's your country."

Bold is for emphasis. South Korea has the right to to pass any law they wish. My point was that it seemed mighty ungrateful for South Korea to force the American military to use their VoIP providers when America is spending billions to aid in their protection.

I am perfectly fine with them blocking the U.S. military from using VoIP. It is their right. But considering I, as an American tax payer am footing the bill, it's my RIGHT to ask the U.S. government to ask South Korea for compensation BACK to the U.S. government for protecting South Korea. I would then ask my Congressman/women to take 0.00000001% of these billions of dollars paid by South Korea and give it directly to American servicemen/women serving in South Korea.

>>I think it's typical short sightedness of the far right to assume that anywhere an American goes they should get everything exactly the same as they do in America.

I never said that either. Each country has its own law and customs which must be respected. However, there are exceptions to this rule. For instance, US Embassies are considered US Soil, even if they are in a foreign country. Within those walls US laws apply not the foreign country's.

Military bases are affording similar protections. For instance, the U.S. has Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) with countries it has bases located. According to Wiki, in 2002 in South Korea, two girls were killed by a U.S. military vehicle during a training exercise and the soldiers involved were tried under U.S. criminal jurisdiction. The court martial panel found the act to be an unavoidable accident and acquitted the servicemembers, citing no criminal intent or negligence. The U.S. military accepted responsibility for the incident and paid civil damages. Criminal issues vary, but the typical provision in U.S. SOFAs is that U.S. courts will have jurisdiction over crimes committed either by a servicemember against another servicemember or by a servicemember as part of his or her military duty, but the host nation retains jurisdiction over other crimes.

Other countries with foreign bases have similar type SOFA agreements. So there is already precedent for "special" treatment of foreign military bases. My main point was that the US Military and their bases are "guests" of the South Korean people and it seemed a bit petty to the force U.S. military to use South Korean VoIP service providers. I would think the U.S. military would have an Internet satellite feed to bypass the local S. Korean broadband network or perhaps even their own licensed "private" Internet. Although satellites have terrible latency and the military's private Internet probably can't be used for personal use (i.e. Skype).

Freedom comes with a price and for far too long the American taxpayer has been paying it. The far Left, which I assume is your persuasion, cries that the U.S. is trying to police the world and now you're saying it's our job to protect the world? And at U.S. expense solely? Ridiculous.

Amen, Tom! Bravo!

Obviously, your original post was filled with sarcastic outrage. Your intention was never to tell South Korea what it can and what it can't do. These readers are all in a huff over nothing.

You put it in perfect perspective. Does seems a bit odd that a U.S. military base which no doubt is a BOOM to the local Korean economy (37,000 men/women with military pay) would bite the hand that protects them -- and spends good money locally.

Yeah, I agee with Tom that South Korea has the right to ban VoIP for the U.S. military -but that doesn't mean it should.

p.s. I'm a Canadian, so don't believe that all Canadians are anti-U.S. Lefties.

Hehe, well I'm no anti-US lefty, that's for certain. I'm an anti-extreme right or left centrist. American, Canadian or Zimbabwean: if you're opinion only shows one side of the story I will probably comment about it. I have trouble with people not understanding that just because it is a certain way here doesn't mean it makes sense to be the same way there. You all say that it makes no sense to ban VoIP because the bases bring in tons of dollars to the country; obviously the losses of telecom revenue outweight the influx of US dollars. And, Tom, you say "You go ahead and block VoIP. Sure, it's un-democratic and it's not your free market policy that is typical of democracies." Is not your very own model democracy doing that very thing? The ill thought out FCC regulations on VoIP and NetNeutrality of the past two years have a lone purpose of protect the interests of wireline telecom, EXACTLY what South Korea is trying to do (although perhaps not as diplomatically).

Look, I don't disagree that it's a rearward looking plan to block VoIP to protect a lobby groups interests. I don't disagree that you as an American taxpayer have a right to ask for countries your forces are supporting to treat the forces with equanimity and fairness. And I definitely don't have a problem with America or Americans (as the saying goes, some of my best friends...). All I disagreed with was the fact that you feel your troops deserve free VoIP because they are American. What your troops deserve is for the American taxpayers to pay for their phone calls, their food and their wages. What your troops need to do is to bill the taxpayers based on economics of the country they are in, not the economics of America.

Although a base may be considered American territory and things within that base follow American law and jurisdiction, as soon as you leave that base you are back in the country of residence. As soon as a skype call leaves the base's network, it is now in Korea and falls victim to the laws and regulations there, correct or not.

I guess we should just agree that we won't agree on this; I am surprised that a country as wired as South Korea would consider banning internet communications, but I have to allow their right to do so. If America wants to pull out of South Korea, that's America's right. To do so to save 37,000 troops 30 dollars a month on phone bills just seems...trivial to me. THAT is what incited me to comment, NOT anti-Americanism.

Twitchy,
Thanks for your even-handed follow-up reply. I agree with a lot of what you said. Except a few...

>>Is not your very own model democracy doing that very thing? The ill thought out FCC regulations on VoIP and NetNeutrality of the past two years

True, and I've written about net neutrality in my blog. Just wrote another entry yesterday. The difference I see between what South Korea is doing with regards to net neutrality (blocking VoIP) and the U.S. is that in South Korea isn't necessarily a net neutrality issue. They are banning a specific Internet service. They aren't applying tiered levels of service - they're outright banning it. The only countries that typically ban VoIP are totalitarian states - i.e. China. I could be wrong, but I can't think of any democracy that bans VoIP. Considering South Korea is one of the most technologically advanced countries, is one of the most "wired", with arguably the most tech-savvy people in the country, it seems odd to be banning VoIP.

>>All I disagreed with was the fact that you feel your troops deserve free VoIP because they are American.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that American troops had a right to "free" VoIP. I just felt they had a right to choose which VoIP service provider they wanted - whether it's Skype, Vonage, etc. It seemed anti-competitive to force American troops to use South Korean VoIP providers.

I won't go wacko-conspiracy theory here, but you could argue that having American military conversations to friends/family running over solely South Korean VoIP providers is a national security risk, i.e. they could listen in on military conversations. Troops aren't supposed to discuss military manuevers or confidential info, but often times they just want to talk about their day, what they are doing, etc. Of course South Korea is an ally, but that doesn't preclude our allies from spying on us - e.g. Israel spied on the U.S. (Johnathan Pollard)

>>If America wants to pull out of South Korea, that's America's right. To do so to save 37,000 troops 30 dollars a month on phone bills just seems...trivial to me

I'm not suggesting we pull out over $30/month that U.S. military service personnel have to pay out of pocket. Even though that $30 is actually quite a bit of money to someone that averages around $32,000/year. But I can see how perhaps my displeasure at South Korea's policy could have been construed that way (that we should pull out).

>>What your troops deserve is for the American taxpayers to pay for their phone calls, their food and their wages.

I agree with you 100% here. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. As far as I know, the U.S. military gets a salary to pay for almost all expenses. Food is included if you go to the commissary, but who wants military food all the time? Most military members will leave the base and go to McDonalds or some local restaurant at some point. Thus, phone calls come out of their own pocket. So I don't blame U.S. service members from trying to save a buck or two. Isn't that a Sprint commercial slogan?

It would be nice if essential expenses were all paid for. Food is covered like I said, but I think phone calls back home should be covered as well. But because it phone calls aren't covered, it bothers me that they will have to pay more money - forced to use South Korean VoIP providers when they can use less expensive VoIP alternatives.

This really has nothing to do with the orriginal post, but I do not see the need to have any troops in South Korea.

I think we should just pull out all of the troops!!! I do not understand their purpose there at this point. I doubt that having troops there is what keep the North Koreans from moving south. In reality, what would our thousands of troops do againt the million North Korean troops? Our naval forces and Air Force are a good enough deterent.

But, this is probably another conversation for another day.

>>In reality, what would our thousands of troops do againt the million North Korean troops?

I'm no military expert, but let me play devil's advocate. If we have 37,000 American soldiers there that are overrun, killed, or captured, this would be a clear declaration of war. All Americans - Left, Right, Democrat, Republican, would be outraged at the unprovoked slaughter of our "trip wire" forces. There would be overwhelming support to retake South Korea.

However, if we had NO ground troops there and North Korea invades and takes over South Korea, it will be much harder to convince "some" Americans that is worth going to war to recapture South Korea. Sure, we probably have a treaty agreeing to protect South Korea, but that doesn't guarantee we'd honor it. If American's don't have the stomach for it, or if anti-war activists protest enough and get enough of Congress to think it's not worth it, we may just let it go.

Unfortunately, our country had become very polarized - just look at the Iraq war - and I don't think we could get enough support to field a force to go up against >1 million North Korean forces. We lost 50,000 troops in the Korean War. Are we willing to lose 3X that to retake South Korea? I'm not so sure we have enough bipartisan support for that - unless there is outrage over the killing of our "trip wire" forces.

it's a sad day in America that we'd have to sacrifice 37,000 forces in order to have bipartisan support to go to war. But it's true.

Also,
MVP you claim Tom should stay away from history? Why, because he is not a revisionist like you?

"It was US (Teddy Roosevelt) who handed over Korea to Japan and stood by and watched while Japan raped and pillage the country and the continent."

This is honestly a comment that makes absolutely no sense unless it's only purpose is to add to the "blame the US for the worlds problems" list...

Please explain when exactly the U.S. was in a position to "hand over Korea" to the Japanese?

Japanese occupation of Korea was a result of the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars. Also, what were we supposed to do in 1910 to stop anything from happening across the world? We could not stop Japan in the 1940's from conquring the vast majority of the Far East, until the industrial might of the U.S. was able to kick into gear.

Before you lecture anyone regarding thier "lack of knowledge" you really should fact check before proving your own lack of knowledge...

Tom,
While I consider myself far from being a pacifist or even a liberal, I do not think that our troops are the true deterent. I think North Korea at this point is truly just a sabre rattling country that needs to keep provoking the US and others, becuase it takes the focus off the fact that the goverment has absolutely failed to take care of it's own population.

Our treaty with South Korea would be kept regardless if we had troops get slaughtered or not. I do not believe the powers in that area (China and Russia) would in any way support any actions by the North that would lead to another war, that could have diasterous results for the area at large (i.e. a nuclear exchange)

I also hate to say it, but at this point in time, the US is not in a position to fight a ground war in Korea regardless of our troops getting slaughtered (God forbid). I do not think an attack by the North would galvanize the kind of support in the US that an attack on our sovereing soil would. You would not have masses of people enlisting, that would be needed to fit a war against a million enemy troops.

Plus, if the South is willing to act like Chamberlain and appease the North (as they have been doing recently) then let them lie in the bed they have made...

I honestly would rather see those 37,000 troops patrolling our borders in an effort to increase homeland security, but this is another discussion for a different time.

It's a bit sad to talk about what the U.S. is doing for South Koreans, what they've done in the 60's, etc. To me, they are rather irrelevant. It's also sad that people talk about regulations, etc... considering phone companies in Canada, U.S. are all regulated to a certain degree.
I've talked to several GIs who are outrageous over the idea. Well, personally I use Vonage in Korea, but if that's against the law, then well i'm ready to give up.
S.Korean gov't isn't telling people that they can't use VoIP. They just can't use unregulated phone lines. This is not some weird law that only exists in Korea. All phone services are licensed in the US as well.
Let me just give you one reason why they should be licensed. If the police gets a court warrant and wants to tap a phone line in Korea (well, unlike in the U.S., cops still need a court warrant to wiretap in Korea) they would need to contact the phone company. Hence, a need for regulations.

oh one more thing. The US Congress never paid stipend for them to call back home even before Vonage existed. So uhm... I doubt the US Congress will do that.
I guess S.Koreans are doomed. They got the help they needed 50 years ago and now they're stuck with reparations. I wonder if the author agrees with reparations that some african-americans want for the white people's wrongdoings in the past?

>I wonder if the author agrees with reparations that some african-americans want for the white people's wrongdoings in the past?

Are you drinking the Kool-Aid again? What a looney analogy. Your arguments had some merit until you mentioned that. The author of this post wasn't asking for reparations for U.S.'s 50 years of protecting s. korea. He was simply pointing out that you'd think the S. korean gov't would be a little more lenient on u.s. service members that are over there protecting them "free of charge".

well, free for S. korea - not so free to the american tax payer.

Pulling our the reparations for blacks card was uncalled for. One has nothing to do with the other. For one, we no longer enslave blacks in the U.S. - it's been > 100 years - where as we still pay to protect S. korea.

The U.S. never really asks for reparations. In fact, after WWII we helped rebuild Germany, and indeed all of Europe. If anything, the U.S. has been overly generous in how it spends its tax payer's money.

Maybe we should ask repayment from all the countries that received U.S. foreign aid over the past 80 years. If we asked in return for what we gave, we could wipe out the deficit 10 times over.

but no, we shouldn't do that. America is a generous nation that doesn't ask for repayment. Even though she never gets the thanks she deserves, she is still a caring nation willing to help poor nations and even wealthy nations in time of need.

As the previous poster said, America is blamed for all the world's evil, yet without her this world would not be the same. We'd all probably be eating sushi and sauerkraut.

I agree with the poster. Letting the military have a small VoIP exemption is the least S. Korea could do.

Well, as a south korea-born canadian, i can't say that my birth country's action is a proud one. But then, no gouvernment's military action is purely beneficial to the country at the receiving end, and surely American troops present in South Korea serve more than to protect South koreans from the demise of north invasion to Americans. The question for US is now weather that interest is worth more than 37000 soldiers' phone bill, and i m sure that smart people in the US will crunch numbers and decide it fast enough.

Lets keep this in the context of the original post. Bottom line is, US provided VOIP service is and should continue to be an option to Americans living in Korea. It would be a sham if South Korea was to block Americans from using these services thus forcing them to use the more expensive services offered by the South Korean competitors. That would just be cut throat business tactic. Wouldn't that be akin to preventing Americans in Korea from shopping at Walmart.com. After all just about everything you can get in Walmart is available on the Korean ecconomy. The problem is, its more expensive, The instructions are probably in Hangul (Korean Language)customer service is a night mare (language barrier) and in some cases Americans are forced to get rid of these items before leaving Korea due to shipping limitations, import restrictions and incompatibility. If I already have a contract with Vonage, I can use it for the short time I am in Korea and continue my service on my return to the US. Contrarily, If I am forced to purchase a Korea plan,Incurring new equipment charges, connection fees etc, it is only good while I am in Korea.
If South Kore wants to level the playing field then they need to offer the same level of service as Vonage or skype for the same price and oh by the way, when I want it to work when I return to the USA.

Its not just the South Koreans though. Has anyone heard of Vonage vs. Verizon or Vonage vs. Sprint. Their cut throat "ism" in America too.

For the record, I am a U.S. service member serving in Korea.

People do not tend to comprehend all that soldiers and their families have to sacrifice when they are here in South Korea to be ready to die to defend another country and serve as the "trip wire" so that US Congress would be militarily obligated to respond. Yes, S. Korea should be able to do everything it chooses in their country; however, I would hope that they would take our sacrifice into consideration and that of our 50,000 fallen soldiers from the Korean War when making legislation that will have negative affects on the welfare on individuals who are willing to defend and die for South Korea. The US spends a lot of money keeping a US force in the peninsula as a deterrent, as such, the S. Korean government would have to vastly increase part of their GPD to go towards financing a force that could equal the current US force in South Korea. Tom you have the right as a US tax paper, American citizen, and just a person who sees an injustice to speak out. Thank you!

Look you guys aren't looking at this from a technical perspective. Sure you cushy americans are totally used to having unlimited network connectivity. Unfortunatekly in South korea this isn't the case. How much bandwidth do you think VOIP and video through skype takes? You probablly can't comprehend it but their network is far to old to withstand the burden of allowing everyone completely free access to both VOIP and video calling features.

And plus your american patritotism is cute but how much suffering do you think the U.S. is causing world wide right now? I am sure it outweighs the good they are doing in one little country. Keep the big picture in mind when you are ranting and raving about american imperialism

Why bother making any point where we can't do anything?

Anyway, opinions are opinions and not necessarily the truth.

But one thing you need to ponder upon, why many are angry and don't feel like happy about what the U.S. are doing to the world?

I just want to make a point. The US Government is there for you and me to live this world with love, peace and harmony.

Good luck wherever you are.