Subject: RE: VoIP regulation... Japan versus USA approaches (RE: Masataka Ohta, Simon)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 17:13:22 +0200

> 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-masked]>
ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor
Strategy and Policy Unit <http://www.itu.int/spu/>

---

From: "Christian de Larrinaga" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:53:37 +0100

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

---

From: S Woodside <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 15:52:40 -0400

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

--
simonwoodside.com -- openict.net -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 09:28:41 +0859 ()

Simon;

> 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.

> internet regulation for VoIP.

No, not at all. It is merely that some country such as US has
a paradoxical regulation on voice.

> >>> 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.

> You do not include "reliable" or more  
> 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  

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.

> If the power goes out it doesn't matter!

See above.

> No.

Have more experience with PSTN.

							Masataka Ohta

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 10:11:42 +0859 ()

Bob;

> 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.

> 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.

> 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