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

From: [email-masked] (Dan Kolis)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 10:06:40 -0400

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.
>b. VoIP is internet and should not be regulated.
>Why, do you think, the Internet without voice should not be regulated?
>It is.
>Paradoxical reguration on voice in US is a US local issue.

Dan says:
If VoIp just was a telephony service the argument of bypass shows up in FCC
policy and paying into the universal fund is an argument which is looked
upon with possible merit at the Fcc. Here is the first shot across the bow:

  "ACTA submits that the providers of this software are tele-
  communications carriers and, as such, should be subject to FCC
  regulation like all telecommunications cations carriers.  ACTA also
  submits that the FCC has the authority to regulate the Internet."

This request for relief, in its entirety, is here:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Other/actapet.html

Mostly I guess IETF is supposed to be "technical" so I'll not blather on.
The language in the request for reregulation (aka "relief"), Is really
forcefully worded that Internet is screwing the little man with a phone
pretty bad.

No matter how you look at it... "Bypass" using Internet to begin and end in
the PSTN (public switched network) is different politically and tarrif wise
than a packet to packet only activity.

Of course, its ultra messy. What did you expect? If one member in the
session is on packets, to and from a MTA, the others are on a gateway and
some of it is carried on ATM leased from a phone company... even if you want
to fund the Universal fund... who pays? Everybody? just because one user
joined in via a GR-303 connection?

Our friends at Worldcom/MCI are in trouble for burrowing traffic to and from
other countries to avoid tarrifs... presumably via IP. Its crazy in that you
can't argue really this is anything except common sense, possibly both from
traffic eng. and economics.

The whole thing is a mess. But taxation almost always is messy. I think it
was Milton Freedman who suggested designing a progressive taxation scheme
that doesn't hurt the economic activity is like asking for a low-pain
crucifiction. Some spots for the nails maybe hurt more than others. None
feel good.

But instead of being "smart guy" here... I have a suggestion. If you want
Internet to florish with the minimum of trouble(s), don't call it VoIP.
Called it QoS enhanced... personal enablement services, etc. When you write
documents, etc help the sales people dream up there literature... whatever.
Try to get the open ended nature of SIP in there. And of course, like the
excellent lead of IETF? don't use PSTN numbers  if possible. the Autonomous
numbers used for the Cisco phone handout was brilliant.

Anything but voice. Personal broadcasting sessions. Whatever.

The question of whether the universal fund is valid is a diferent argument.
I suggest its a preditory activity to deny access to services by subsidizing
existing system with prejidice against low earth orbiting satellite providers.

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 ???

regards,
Dan

Sorry if its not normal IETF subject matter. Its interesting to me, anyway

thanks
dan