RE: VoIP regulation... Japan versus USA approaches (RE: Masataka Ohta, Simon)
I am curious how Japan does this, but the island size and density makes the whole argument different to some extent. So, how's it work under the wise rule of NHK/MTT ??? That'd be MPHPT at http://www.soumu.go.jp/ see http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/2003/09/03.html#a172, particularly the Japan talk (sorry Powerpoint) which explains how they're allocating telephone numbers to IP terminal devices and the policy considerations they're working on (e.g., quality, interconnection, emergency services, etc.) The uptake in VOIP in Japan has been driven by the success of cheap/fast broadband (see http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/2003/07/21.html#a72 for background explanation). In Japan, consumer broadband prices per Mbit/s are about 35 times cheaper than the US. For example, you can buy 100 Mbps of residential FTTH from USEN for about US$ 49.00 a month. Many countries have moved beyond the regulatory debates that characterize the US very-much sector-specific regulatory framework. There are a number of indications the landscape is changing rapidly in the US too (see http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/categories/voip/2003/08/22.html#a159) Bob -- Robert Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor Strategy and Policy Unit http://www.itu.int/spu/
RE: VoIP regulation... Japan versus USA approaches (RE: Masataka Ohta, Simon)
Many countries have moved beyond the regulatory debates that characterize the US very-much sector-specific regulatory framework. There are a number of indications the landscape is changing rapidly in the US too (see http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/categories/voip/2003/08/22. html#a159) Bob you mean that current telecoms regulations are passed their sell by date anyway and serve as trade protectionism for a fast reducing minority of vested interests? Christian Christian de Larrinaga Network Brokers Ltd +44-7989-386778
RE: VoIP regulation... Japan versus USA approaches (RE: Masataka Ohta, Simon)
you mean that current telecoms regulations are passed their sell by date anyway and serve as trade protectionism for a fast reducing minority of vested interests? Christian No, on the contrary. For example, if it hadn't been for proactive regulatory intervention in local loop unbundling in Korea and Japan and many other regulatory measures, there wouldn't be such a dynamic broadband market in those countries nor would one see so much growth in VOIP services. You can thank the regulators and policy makers in those countries for stimulating growth and bringing lots of benefits to users... Bob
Re: VoIP regulation... Japan versus USA approaches (RE: Masataka Ohta, Simon)
Robert, thanks for the links. Very educational. Indeed is the ITU definition: IP telephony is used as a generic term for the transmission of voice using IP technology. IP telephony can be broadly classified as configurations using closed-bandwidth IP networks or IP networks with guaranteed fixed bandwidths and as configurations using the Internet; these latter configurations are referred to as Internet telephony. Internet Telephony another paradox. How can the public internet possibly support telephony? We have as axiomatic the edge-to-edge principle which guarantees that the person at the other end may not have UPS power supply. This is a DESIGN GOAL of the internet, hence, the paradox. Is that design goal changing? The fact of the paradox is going to lead to paradoxical situations like internet regulation for VoIP. Ohta-san wrote: There is no internet telephony... See my paper Simple Internet Phone presented at INET2000. http://www.isoc.org/inet2000/cdproceedings/4a/4a_3.htm in the paper introduction: However, it is obvious that the telephone network will be replaced by the Internet, and will eventually disappear. At that time, most of the features of VoIP protocols will become obsolete. Instead, the Simple Internet Phone is designed placing the priority in the affinity to the Internet and its architectural principles as an end-to-end, globally connected and scalable IP network. Why is this obviously true? You do not include reliable or more importantly available in your list of architectural principle of the internet, but as I pointed out in my paradox paper, available is the top principle of the telephone network. I believe that BY DESIGN the two are mutually exclusive, thus, it is a paradox to say internet telephony. later: in an emergency / power failure? In emergency, best effort network works better than circuit swithced one, of course. If the power goes out it doesn't matter! As for power, have you ever used ISDN with TAs? No. I think you are going to assume that VoIP == TAs (terminal adapters for VoIP) which is just one narrowly defined case of VoIP, so you contradict yourself. simon On Wednesday, September 3, 2003, at 11:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am curious how Japan does this, but the island size and density makes the whole argument different to some extent. So, how's it work under the wise rule of NHK/MTT ??? That'd be MPHPT at http://www.soumu.go.jp/ see http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/2003/09/03.html#a172, particularly the Japan talk (sorry Powerpoint) which explains how they're allocating telephone numbers to IP terminal devices and the policy considerations they're working on (e.g., quality, interconnection, emergency services, etc.) The uptake in VOIP in Japan has been driven by the success of cheap/fast broadband (see http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/2003/07/21.html#a72 for background explanation). In Japan, consumer broadband prices per Mbit/s are about 35 times cheaper than the US. For example, you can buy 100 Mbps of residential FTTH from USEN for about US$ 49.00 a month. Many countries have moved beyond the regulatory debates that characterize the US very-much sector-specific regulatory framework. There are a number of indications the landscape is changing rapidly in the US too (see http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/categories/voip/2003/08/ 22.html#a159) Bob -- Robert Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor Strategy and Policy Unit http://www.itu.int/spu/ -- simonwoodside.com -- openict.net -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel
Re: VoIP regulation... Japan versus USA approaches (RE: Masataka Ohta,Simon)
Simon; Internet Telephony another paradox. How can the public internet possibly support telephony? We have as axiomatic the edge-to-edge principle which guarantees that the person at the other end may not have UPS power supply. This is a DESIGN GOAL of the internet, hence, the paradox. Is that design goal changing? You are talking about paradox of PSTN, then. Emergency power supply is not required directly by law. Over ISDN, emergency power supply is not required even by finer regulation and even though NTT is voluntarily supply power, it is not enough to drive an analog phone device over a TA, which is the way almost all are using ISDN. In addition, a consequence of the end-to-end (not edge-to-edge) principle is fate sharing property to maximize reliability and availability, which has nothing to do with not having UPS. The fact of the paradox is going to lead to paradoxical situations like internet regulation for VoIP. No, not at all. It is merely that some country such as US has a paradoxical regulation on voice. There is no internet telephony... See my paper Simple Internet Phone presented at INET2000. http://www.isoc.org/inet2000/cdproceedings/4a/4a_3.htm in the paper introduction: However, it is obvious that the telephone network will be replaced by the Internet, Why is this obviously true? It was obvious, if you have had enough knowledge on PSTN. See above. But, as the replacement is happening, it is even more obvious. of the features of VoIP protocols will become obsolete. Instead, the Simple Internet Phone is designed placing the priority in the affinity to the Internet and its architectural principles as an end-to-end, globally connected and scalable IP network. You do not include reliable or more importantly available in your list of architectural principle of the internet, Reliability and availability is automatically derived from the end-to-end principle. but as I pointed out in my paradox paper, available is the top principle of the telephone network. I believe that BY DESIGN the two are mutually exclusive, thus, it is a paradox to say internet telephony. By design, telephone network, violating the end-to-end principle to have central servers, is faulty. So is MGCP, which is a major cause of loss of availability of Internet telephony or VoIP network using MGCP. In emergency, best effort network works better than circuit swithced one, of course. If the power goes out it doesn't matter! See above. As for power, have you ever used ISDN with TAs? No. Have more experience with PSTN. Masataka Ohta
Re: VoIP regulation... Japan versus USA approaches (RE: Masataka Ohta,Simon)
Bob; I am curious how Japan does this, but the island size and density makes the whole argument different to some extent. So, how's it work under the wise rule of NHK/MTT ??? That'd be MPHPT at http://www.soumu.go.jp/ Though cabinet set a wise strategy, MPHPT has no idea on what is the Internet telephony and making stupid actions. However, as the actions are so delayed and are not so actively against the cabinet strategy that they are not so harmful. The uptake in VOIP in Japan has been driven by the success of cheap/fast broadband (see http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/2003/07/21.html#a72 Progress of the Internet telephony in Japan is by private ISPs, which are convinced that free long distance telephony (with additional charged (but inexpensive) service for PSTN gatewaying) is the most powerful sales promotion tool of their service. Many countries have moved beyond the regulatory debates that characterize the US very-much sector-specific regulatory framework. There are a number of indications the landscape is changing rapidly in the US too (see http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/categories/voip/2003/08/22.html#a159) Too bad. They are still talking about voice. No one can regulate individuals use VoIP over the Internet without central authority similar to NAPSTAR. The basic problem of US regulation is not that they don't regulate VoIP but that their model on universal access charge is not economically feasible. Universal access charge is to help people in sparsely populate area. So, the charge should be paid by regional providers in densely polulated area (regardless of whether the providers provide PSTN, TV or the Internet service). Can't ITU-T perform some study to let USG recognize its fault? Masataka Ohta
