Ching's Weblog 敬.網.誌 (2004~2005)

Skype in the Sky

Joi Ito just finished his first ever skype-casting while he's on the Lufthansa flight to Frankfurt. I wonder if it's the first ever skype-casting from the air in the Internet history. The sound quality is excellent.

BTW Ito-san said that there is no one sitting next to him...:-)

Skype to Google?

Skype seeks portal partners...and Google to buy Skype? (read more)

A very interesting article by Bambi Francisco from Marketwatch.com.

....I don't imagine the search engine will talk about its intentions (if any) of foraying into such a business. But since Google has its g-mail e-mail offering, it's already saying implicitly that conversations are a big part of the information that it wants to organize. Therefore, having a service that helps users communicate via instant messaging or voIP lines is aligned with its mission...Now, Google doesn't need Skype's 45 million users to jumpstart any business it gets into, and it certainly wouldn't buy Skype for revenue.

Skype-In; FCC-out

(Via Jeff Pulver Blog)

Skype has just hired Christopher Libertelli, former Senior Legal Advisor to former FCC Chairman Michael Powell, to handle government and regulatory affairs for North America. It's great to see that Skype is stepping up its role in the global policy arena.

So does not mean that the federal government / fcc/ white house / capital hill would be skype-ready in near future?

ENUM Summit: Day 2

(read my previous post about ENUM Summit)

Today the topics covered mostly ENUM deployment status in the telecom carriers in the US and ITSP in the Europe. Very, very informative, and I realized the following facts:

1. Today ITSPs are still exchanging calls via PSTN network (e.g. IP-PSTN-IP). Because of this the quality of VoIP calls and the value-added IP-based services can not be delivered effectively. So actually ENUM could be the best available solution to bridge all those isolated VoIP islands and making VoIP a truly "on-net" environment. XConnect is providing ITSPs free peering and call exchange services. I chatted with its CEO, Eli Katz, yesterday about how Taiwanese ITSPs can join the alliances. I think it's time to introduce our IPOX to them.

ENUM Summit: Day 1

Check my flickr photo album :-)

Nearly 100 people join this first-ever ENUM summit. I am surprised that people are paying for like 2000 USD for a two-day ENUM-specific conferences. But I must say, it is very worthy to do so. I realized that the audience cares more about +1 delegation and administration, yet this event also helps the general public to understand what's going on about ENUM development around the world.

I talked a little bit about ENUM /VoIP regulation in the morning session, and in the afternoon Dr. Tseng introduced the Taiwanese ENUM trial, with some real hands-on operational facts. Shin and I helped James (he cancelled the trip at the last minute) to introduce and promote APEET trials and we got great response and feedback from the audience (some approached us for sponsorship opportunity in our next trial in Vancouver IETF meeting). I also got the chance to meet and learn from many heavy-weight ENUM figures like Richard Shockey (chairperson of the Summit), Scott Bradner, Richard Stasny, Michael Haberler, Karen Mulberry (chairperson of +1 LLC), Sabine Dolderer, etc.

The concept of ENUM is simple. Telephone number in, URL out. The best gift for the telco from the Internet world. User would have full control on how and when they wish to be contacted. I hope that by the end of Day 1, audience would keep that in mind.

BTW although it's a ENUM conference, VoIP seems to be the major topic, and Skype!

I very much look forward to Day 2. There would be presentations from leading ITSPs and ENUM / SIP solution providers.

ps..Later we went to South Beach, the REAL Miami, for a good dinner, yet too much SIP / ENUM in our dialog so I can't even finish my 50 USD meal...  -_-III

VoIP: Good News from SG

IDA Launches New Policy Framework for Internet Protocol (IP) Telephony
(via James Seng)

Facilities-based operators¹ (FBOs) and services-based operators² (SBOs) can be licensed under the new IP Telephony framework. For the provision of IP Telephony services, FBOs can use 8-digit level "6" numbers. In addition, IDA will issue a new 8-digit number level "3" (i.e. +65 3xxx xxxx) to both FBOs and SBOs.
(zh-tw)說明一下, FBO就是我們第一類電信業者, SBO就是第二類. 第一類要經營網路電話的可以用"6"開頭的號碼, 這也是一般新加坡市民用的固網號碼. 另外, iDA也新增"3"開頭的號碼, 讓一類和二類業者都可以用.

To encourage adoption in this emerging technology, IDA's framework includes minimal regulatory obligations to address certain public and regulatory concerns. Operators providing IP Telephony services using level '3' numbers, are not required to provide number portability, emergency service connection, directory enquiry and printed directory services, or conform to QoS levels set by IDA. However, operators must provide clear information to their subscribers, for example, whether their service allows access to emergency services and whether it meets the minimum QoS levels set by IDA for local fixed-line services.
(zh-tw)這邊更要說明一下. 拿"3"開頭的可以先不提供號碼可攜, 緊急電話, QoS等服務, 但必須要告知用戶有這些狀況. 以下的"6"開頭的號碼, 就要遵照一般固網特許事業的規定.

FBOs who wish to use 8-digit level "6" numbers (i.e. +65 6xxx xxxx) for IP Telephony services can do so, if they can provide number portability; connection to emergency services; directory enquiry and printed directory services; and, ensure quality-of-service (QoS) levels that are currently required for local fixed-line services. FBOs must also ensure interconnection such that users can receive and make voice calls to fixed-line and mobile subscribers in Singapore. These are similar obligations for current local fixed-line services.

連新加坡這樣的警察國家對於新科技都有如此的包容, 看看台灣....昨天在DGT的座談會裡, ITSP業者出席非常踴躍, 但是DGT沒有先做好功課, 搞不清楚業者及民眾的需求; 檢調機關反正就老大心態,  不論IP-PSTN或是IP-IP, 他們都要能夠監聽才能讓業者上路; 業者當然就可以不玩, 因為玩一天虧一天; 民眾反正無法抵抗或是要求, 也就別想說台灣的電信服務能有多創新了...:-(

SkypeIn in Japan

SkypeIn日本實現, 配一般網路電話050. 見press release (日文)

VoIP: Bad News

Bad news for VoIP / ITSP industry today. Taiwan's DGT, the telecom regular today announced that a great possibility that all VOICE communication over Internet, with or without E.164 number, will be regulated as traditional telephony service.

"This is to encourage the innovation of technology whereas public safety is also secured", said in the document released from the DGT website. This law amendment is now released for public comment.

All ITSPs, with or without E.164 number, must provide lawful interception function upon local LEA's request. (LEA stands for Law Enforcement Agency). All ITSPs which delegate with E.164 number must provide 119 (emergency call) and location service. The call / service quality must be equivalent to the call quality of mobile phone.

All "foreign" ITSPs must get DGT's approval for operating VoIP services in Taiwan.

...@##$#%$%&@....

以下幾件事是您可以幫忙阻止愚蠢的決策
Here are couple of things that you can do to stop stupid policy:

1. 錄一段一秒的語音檔, 然後以附件方式寄給電總, 請教他們如何定義這是語音服務還是其他種內容
Each of us can record a one-second voice message, attach it in an Email and send it to DGT. Ask them what kind of content it is.

2. 多用P2P服務, 忘掉那奇怪的VoIP編碼計畫. 如果可以的話, 請你的朋友多多利用open source的SIP server還有softphone. 如果你需要幫忙, 請跟我說.
Start to use more P2P service. Forget about VoIP numbering. If possible, ask your friend to setup a open source SIP server / softphone. If you do need a hand, let me know.

3. 您可在此留言, 談談VoIP的好處, 並告訴大家你不需要重重法條限制
Post your comment here regarding and let us know how u find VoIP has been useful and you don't need heavy regulation on this.

4. 聯繫您選出的立委, 告訴他們現在連Skype都要被監聽了
Contact your legislators from your area and tell them that even Skype is obligated for lawful interception.

update: 我完全支持政府正視網路電話管理的議題以及安全上的考量, 但就像打籃球一樣, 網路電話是大家去戶外鬥個牛, 傳統電信好像是NBA, 我們萬萬不可用相同標準去衡量和要求. 政府應該率先將資訊基礎建設做好, 能讓各項創新服務百花齊放, 我們NCC基本法不就是這樣寫的嗎?

老實說我也替DGT打抱不平, 上有受到財團壓迫的長官, 下有我們這群有話直說, 熱心過度的網友, 內有不食人間煙火的行政官僚...話說回來哪個單位不是這樣? 多動動腦筋, 少動嘴啦....

Tags: voip, wiretap

踢皮球

有關台灣VoIP的發展, 現在走到各單位踢皮球的狀態.

CIB on VoIP Wiretap

I had a meeting at the Criminal Investigation Bureau yesterday and learned a lot from them about current lawful interception practices. I could not say much publicly but one thing for sure is that those guys are so capable of getting whatever you said, no matter it's through traditional telephone, cell phone, email, MSN, voip..., you name it.

They just don't have sufficient government money to do all. So be careful when they are ready (SOON!).

The other thing I learned is that they aren't happy to deal with so many service-based ITSPs. Many VoIP solution are service-based, not facility-based, so the CIB still considers ITSPs as facility-based traditional telecom and ITSPs felt that the CIB has been picking on them.  Our job is to ensure the framework for VoIP wiretapping is acceptable by the two.

The regulator, DGT, has given in, refused to take position. I don't believe it's right but has not way to change it....