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,
Robert(_dot_)Shaw(_at_)itu(_dot_)int 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 <robert(_dot_)shaw(_at_)itu(_dot_)int>
ITU Internet Strategy and Policy Advisor
Strategy and Policy Unit <http://www.itu.int/spu/>
--
simonwoodside.com -- openict.net -- 99% Devil, 1% Angel