I know I am late…I saw it a couple of days ago but I was too busy to blog it then.

Last week, I was thinking how nice would it be to have some sort of interface to Skype so new applications can be developed on a platform with 12M users (I said something similar for Orkut before). Wala, Skype make my dream comes thru: Skype API ^_^

The second is that FCC granted Vonage petition so that is not subjected to different states regulation, with endorsement from the Congress! Great News! Now, the State just have to figure out how to pay for the basic social obligations like universal service obligations and emergency services…And there is no easy answer here…

Bob Shaw (from ITU) just did some presentation in Africa (focus on ENUM). But more importantly, I like what he said on Network Technology Shift, which is very similar to what I blog about last year.

ITU-T Definition of NGN (Feb 2004)
A Next Generation Network (NGN) is a packetbased network able to provide services including Telecommunication Services and able to make use of multiple broadband, QoS-enabled transport technologies and in which service-related functions are independent from underlying transport-related technologies. It offers unrestricted access by users to different service providers. It supports generalized mobility which will allow consistent and ubiquitous provision of services to users.

Anyone who still thinks ITU is clueless please raise your hand?

I posted the following on a Stupid Network discussion over at Isen’s blog.

—
On the industry aspect, the role of a pure ISP (ie, the middleman that provides IP connectivity only by procuring infrastructure from a telco) is already dead by 1996 to 1997 when the telco woke up to the idea of Internet.

Pure ISPs started disappearing, either moving up layer (like AOL) or down the layer to build infrastructure. They are been squeeze by both side afterall, with a cost squeezed by telcos and revenue squeezed by telcos.

Will such business model comes back? Maybe it will come back as a provider who can roam across multiple infrastructure (2.5G, 3G, Wifi, cable, DSL etc) but not likely in the near future given the FCC policy direction US has taken to drive infrastructure growth by removing “open access” requirements.

So the question is not who is going to build a dumb network – the telcos is; The question is how to convience the telcos that building a dumb network is in their best (business) interest.

The latest news going around is Microsoft is spamming. What’s the hell is going on? I mean they are suppose to be the ‘Good Guy’ in antispam?

Apparently, the whole thing started because Bob Poortinga posting to SPAM-L which then get proprogated into places like Interesting-People. Normally, such silliness will end but somehow a Washington Reporter thinks this could sells some paper and write a story about it. Well done: Guilty before proven Innocent.

Bill Gates posted his Towards a Spam-Free Culture over the same email channel last year but no one complains about it been spam at all. Strange isn’t it?

Don’t get me wrong: I think Steves’ email is bias but the fact I don’t like what he say does not make his email a spam. And I have strong believe Microsoft will come out clean here. But *sigh*, there are people willing to make a Linux crusade into an Spam problem and (not) surprisingly people falling for it.

As I argued in APCAUCE list, such incident is dangerous especially for opt-in advocates. It sets an example of how one could potentially be in a position of ‘guilty before proven innocent’ and would certainly not go down well with the law makers. We are just doing ourselves in. Thank you very much Bob.

Vint Cerf, who is normally a private person, wrote an article for CircleID as titled.

In a sense, ICANN has become the only globally visible body charged with any kind of oversight for the Internet. The scope of this oversight responsibility was deliberately and intentionally limited in the process of the creation of ICANN. But as the Internet continues to grow, as domain names become increasingly visible in the context of the World Wide Web, and as the so-called “dot.com” bubble expanded between 1998 and early 2000 and then burst, many people with concerns or complaints about problems associated with the Internet or use uses (and abuses) have turned to ICANN expecting it to address many of these issues.

This is very much what I said about ICANN in the last one year, that ICANN charter is names & numbers; that while it is part “Internet Governace” but it is not all to it; that we should not expect ICANN to solve all the other Internet problems; that ICANN is in this unfortunately position been the ‘only girl in town’, or in this case, ‘the only target to shoot’…

A European study shows that more people are jumping onto VoIP.

Over 50 million western European consumers with a broadband Internet connection at home may use telephony software and special phones by 2008, British research group Analysys found.

“The impact on traditional telephony providers’ revenues could reach 6.4 billion euros in 2008, representing 13 percent of the residential fixed-line voice market,” said analyst Stephen Sale, adding this was a worst case scenario drawn up for operators who want to know how badly they can be hit.

This is sharp contrast to some other data I seen (particularly from AT&T) where it projects less then 5% will be on VoIP by 2008. Anyway, data are data…no one knows for sure but the impact is definately going to be real.

Incidently, IDA public consultation on IP Telephony and ENUM just closed today (30mins ago) and we recieved 13 comments (at the bottom of the page here), from the local players like Singtel to other players like AT&T and Vonage. Thanks for the feedback … Got to do some reading this weekend. :-)

Goto CNN-Netscape News and see this?

Now, right click on the Bush/Larry image, and Select ‘Open Image’ and check out the URL…See this? http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/cppops/features/n/ne_election5/i/asshole.jpg

Oh man, what can I say. Haha :-) (via Jluster)

I was invited to attend VoiceComm 2004 which started today. Despite its grand sounding name, it is actually just a vendor (Cisco) 2 days seminar, well, with a few other Cisco customers talking about their IP Telephony experiences.

Nevertheless, what is surprising is the number of people who turns out at the event. The keynote delivered by Michael Frendo (VP of Voice Technology Group in Cisco) filled up the whole Threate (350seats) and they have to setup video broadcasts in other rooms to handle the overflow. It is definately a good sign that a vendor event could attract so much attention from the industry :-)

I find myself refreshing CNN, MSNBC and C-SPAN every min in the last hour. Arggh, not looking good so far altho friends tells me not to worry as CA 55 votes is a hands-down and FL & PA & OH haven’t call yet. But FL has been pretty disappointing so far :-(

Update: Okay FL has fallen…OH is now the deciding factor but isn’t looking good either. If OH down, it is game over with bush at 271 :P *sigh*

Update: Okay, looks like OH is down so it is Four More Years^tm for America and the rest of us. I am not exactly sure I like the last four years (terrorists, wars, oils and bad economy) so I am not looking forward to the next four with Bush at the helm.

But hey, if anything else, the last few hours teaches me to appreciate democracy. It has spoken and it has choosen Bush (however small margin). The last thing we need now is lawsuits and prolong fight over presidency like in 2000…

Update: CNN still decided to label OH “too close to call” so for now we have to wait for the provisional votes to be counted too. But not sure Kerry is able to overcome the 3% (150k votes) gap. Anyway, Jeannie is still holding on to Hope^tm.

Update 04/11 12:37am: Kerry just concede to Bush. Game over … *sigh*

Hear hear!

How come a Nethead turns into a Bellhead when placed in the “voice” environment?

This is the best statement I have heard in the last weeks (and I have heard many, being at the VON), because it explains an issue I was wondering recently:

How come that virtual VoIP Service providers (I considered them netheads up to now) start begging for regulation?

Interesting perspective but I could think of only one answer: Regulation certainity is critical before you invest millions of dollars. You don’t want to get sue after you launch your (successful) services.

Secondly, not all regulations are bad ideas. Regulation, if done properly, are meant to provide a level playing field (where there is market failure) and provide market certainity (especially in a heavily competing/confusing situation). Unfortunately, more often then not, it is not very well done but the fault is bad regulation, not regulation itself.