You're completely right and probably a physicist. What made me stop reading this article was the example the authors give of reversible processes: the diffusion of molecules from a perfume bottle. This is one of the canonical examples of a thermodynamically irreversible process.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but I supervised a Master's student [1] who researched the relation between VoIP and laws and regulations in Europe, especially The Netherlands.
There is a lot of regulation on voice telephony, but the question is whether voice over IP (VoIP) is to be regarded as voice telephony. The European Commission has stated [2] that voice-over-internet should be regulated as voice telephony if
(1) The communication is offered on a commercial base
(2) The communication is offered as a service to the public (e.g., not only internally in a company)
(3) The voice communication should be made between termination points of the switched public telephony network
(4) Use of direct transport, and delivery of speech in real time
(5) VoIP is offered as the main component of a service. This means that an ISP that offers VoIP "en passant" with Internet access, without extra charge, is not regulated as an voice telephony provider.
(6) There has to be some kind of "any-to-any" communication
(7) The VoIP service provider should guarantee that the voice quality is the same as the quality of the PSTN (public switched telephony network.
All of this means, that there is at the moment not a ground to regulate VoIP.
But also think what regulation of VoIP under the voice telephony regime would mean. The following list was made especially for The Netherlands, but most rules follow directly from EU guidelines, and should be applicable in all of the EU:
(1) VoIP operators should register with the local telecommunications regulator (UK: OFTEL, NL: OPTA,etc.)
(2) Numbering schemes: telephony numbers are usually organised according to a numbering scheme. Regulation of VoIP should result in incorporation of VoIP numbers, screen names or other handles in these schemes.
(3) Number portability: A consumer should be able to retain his telephony number/screen name/handle when moving from one VoIP operator to the other
(4) VoIP operators should interconnect with each other: this means that a consumer should be able to make a call to a friend who uses the VoIP service of another VoIP provider, and also to another friend that uses PSTN ("normal" telephony)
(5) The European emergy number "112" should be available at no costs to all VoIP consumers
(6) VoIP operators should cooperate with tapping voice communications
There are of course more details, but these are the most important results.
Jan-Pascal
[1] His report is public, if you need it I will ask him to e-mail it to you.
[2] Commission Notice concerning the status of voice on the Internet pursuant to Directive 90/338/EEC, OJ 6, January 10, 1998
--
Jan-Pascal van Best
Delft University of Technology
The Netherlands
http://www.ict.tbm.tudelft.nl
Slashdot Mirror
You're completely right and probably a physicist. What made me stop reading this article was the example the authors give of reversible processes: the diffusion of molecules from a perfume bottle. This is one of the canonical examples of a thermodynamically irreversible process.
Jan-Pascal
Disclaimer: IANAL, but I supervised a Master's student [1] who researched the relation between VoIP and laws and regulations in Europe, especially The Netherlands.
There is a lot of regulation on voice telephony, but the question is whether voice over IP (VoIP) is to be regarded as voice telephony. The European Commission has stated [2] that voice-over-internet should be regulated as voice telephony if
(1) The communication is offered on a commercial base
(2) The communication is offered as a service to the public (e.g., not only internally in a company)
(3) The voice communication should be made between termination points of the switched public telephony network
(4) Use of direct transport, and delivery of speech in real time
(5) VoIP is offered as the main component of a service. This means that an ISP that offers VoIP "en passant" with Internet access, without extra charge, is not regulated as an voice telephony provider.
(6) There has to be some kind of "any-to-any" communication
(7) The VoIP service provider should guarantee that the voice quality is the same as the quality of the PSTN (public switched telephony network.
All of this means, that there is at the moment not a ground to regulate VoIP.
But also think what regulation of VoIP under the voice telephony regime would mean. The following list was made especially for The Netherlands, but most rules follow directly from EU guidelines, and should be applicable in all of the EU:
(1) VoIP operators should register with the local telecommunications regulator (UK: OFTEL, NL: OPTA,etc.)
(2) Numbering schemes: telephony numbers are usually organised according to a numbering scheme. Regulation of VoIP should result in incorporation of VoIP numbers, screen names or other handles in these schemes.
(3) Number portability: A consumer should be able to retain his telephony number/screen name/handle when moving from one VoIP operator to the other
(4) VoIP operators should interconnect with each other: this means that a consumer should be able to make a call to a friend who uses the VoIP service of another VoIP provider, and also to another friend that uses PSTN ("normal" telephony)
(5) The European emergy number "112" should be available at no costs to all VoIP consumers
(6) VoIP operators should cooperate with tapping voice communications
There are of course more details, but these are the most important results.
Jan-Pascal
[1] His report is public, if you need it I will ask him to e-mail it to you.
[2] Commission Notice concerning the status of voice on the Internet pursuant to Directive 90/338/EEC, OJ 6, January 10, 1998
--
Jan-Pascal van Best
Delft University of Technology
The Netherlands
http://www.ict.tbm.tudelft.nl
Actually, three of the root name servers are outside of the USA: one in Sweden, one in London, and one in Tokyo.
What I don't know is, which of the root name servers also serve the gTLD second-level domains (like linux.org, slashdot.org, microsoft.com)?
Jan-Pascal