Japan - some context that you are probably aware ...Re: [IP] Re: Getting Real About the Internet

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
From: Scott Moskowitz [scott@bluespike.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:44 AM
To: David Farber
Subject: Re: Japan - some context that you are probably aware ...Re: [IP] Re: Getting Real About the Internet

sure - can i add the caveat that this was not fact-checked but is
from my own experiences living there for 7 years & work-related
relationships with J-WAVE, DoCoMo - the software group, Yusen,
Softbank & several mobile manufacturers ...

hope you & the family are well ... Scott

On Jul 31, 2008, at 9:32 AM, David Farber wrote:

> ok if I send to IP?
> ________________________________________
> From: Scott Moskowitz [scott@bluespike.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:13 AM
> To: David Farber
> Subject: Japan - some context that you are probably aware ...Re:
> [IP] Re:   Getting Real About the Internet
>
> Prof. Farber - I know, of course, you have experience with Japan, so
> I wanted to point some issues out that may not be appropriate for
> IP ...
>
> recall that Japan has had few satellite channels (the one for NHK
> should not really count but nothing like cable service here), only
> 3-4 television networks and miniscule cable penetration not including
> "yusen" (cable music/audio - which is also a very interesting
> history). radio too is very tightly controlled. J-WAVE, which
> launched in 1988 or so, for instance is still a good example of a
> relative success albeit with much government involvement.
>
> but the functionality & and approach NTT took with DoCoMo including
> or excluding Softbank's real competitive pricing for their own
> offerings in the mobile handset/service/DSL markets -- is very
> different than how the mobile market has evolved here in the US ...
> Even NTT took a stake in ATT's early efforts in the 1990's push for
> mMode (that has been divested if I recall) and mMode (as a charter
> member) was innovative to a very minor extent except for the
> unlimited plans (charter member - "blue" SIM - ATT Wireless) they
> offered (2001) for $99.99 a month ... The pesky unknown charges for
> services like weather that became recurring charges without the
> knowledge of the consumer (or buried deep in a bill) was the huge
> negative ...
>
> NTT does not allow manufactures to put their "name" on DoCoMo phones
> only a designation like "F" = Fujitsu; "SO" - Sony; "N" = NEC.
> etc ... & the manner in which they grew the wireless network is much
> more dynamic and more akin to how Apple & AT&T made their split
> arrangements - very unlike how much control is exerted on the
> software side by Apple, however ... It is curious to see how folks
> like Twitter & other micro-blog-like services get their split on text
> revenue that too has a fixed price point in the public perception,
> say 10 cents per text message.
>
> TV in Japan is so different as to be meaningless in comparing why &
> how wireless services evolved in Japan. & still nothing to watch.
>
> On Jul 30, 2008, at 8:16 PM, David Farber wrote:
>
>> with akk due respect, much of the talk re caps has less to do with
>> traffic management and maybe more to do with competing with TV
>> delivered via the net. Caps structured "correctly" will surcharge
>> TV delivery over the net  so much as to make it non competative
>> with the cable (and fios} TV delivery systems.  So we will continue
>> with hundreds of channels and nothing to watch.  djf
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Brett Glass [brett@lariat.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:47 PM
>> To: David Farber; ip
>> Cc: lauren@vortex.com
>> Subject: Re: Getting Real About the Internet
>>
>> At 05:24 PM 7/30/2008, Lauren Weinstein wrote:
>>
>>> The big ISPs' newly resurrected infatuations with bandwidth caps are
>>> often disingenuous at best.  As we've seen, DOCSIS 3 is going to
>>> provide a whole lotta bandwidth for the cable ISPs.
>>
>> DOCSIS 3 may help some problems on the downstream side. However,
>> remember Japan's experience with 100 Mbps to the home: P2P traffic
>> expanded to saturate it. If P2P mitigation is not allowed, the
>> upgrade will bring no benefit.
>>
>> What's more, faster pipes in the last mile do nothing to reduce the
>> cost of backbone bandwidth, whose price is actually increasing in
>> any location where it must be backhauled. (This due to price
>> increases
>> by the ILECs.)
>>
>>> Why suddenly all the talk of caps from AT&T?  Could it have anything
>>> to do with their ugly U-verse VRAD boxes sprouting like mushrooms in
>>> AT&T service areas, ready to provide television programming, PPV
>>> movies, and other content that might monetize more effectively if
>>> competing Internet-delivered offerings were effectively stifled by
>>> bandwidth caps?
>>
>> No; it has to do with the fact that they have only just upgraded
>> their
>> backbone and already project that the new capacity will be exhausted
>> in two to three years.
>>
>>> More and more, we're being flimflammed when it comes to Internet
>>> connectivity and associated terms of service limitations.
>>
>> This is simply untrue, Lauren. Let's REALLY get real here: The
>> fact is
>> that ALL ISPs are being slammed by exponentially increasing demand
>> for
>> bandwidth -- which certain parties, including yourself, seem to
>> expect
>> them to provide for free.
>>
>> --Brett Glass
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------
>
>




-------------------------------------------