Masataka Ohta and/or Simon said:
You should, at least, distinguish VoIP as a telephone network
and the Internet telephony.
In Japan, TAs to connect the Internet and POTS telephone devices
are rapidly replacing the telephone network including VoIP ones.
a. VoIP is telephony and should be regulated.
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
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)
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
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
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
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
