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