首页> 外文OA文献 >Shape of universal service policy for IoT: An exploration from US and Japanese policies on universal service for broadband
【2h】

Shape of universal service policy for IoT: An exploration from US and Japanese policies on universal service for broadband

机译:物联网的普遍服务政策:探索美国和日本关于宽带普遍服务的政策

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This paper has two major parts. First, it reviews U.S. and Japanese broadband universal service policies, with special attention to the process of and discussions on (re)defining scope of the network services to be dealt with in the policy. Second, it explores the shape of universal service policy for Internet of Things. IoT is still in its formative years, but there is a potential for IoT-based devices and services to be popular and important for the social life in the near future. This paper takes an approach to first review how the universal service policies determine target service for the policy. More specifically, recent policy discussions and formal processes in the U.S. and Japan regarding inclusion of broadband network for universal service are reviewed. In the U.S. formal inclusion process of broadband network for universal service has happened in the early 2010's. In Japan, there is an ongoing policy discussion, which may or may not lead to inclusion of broadband in the near future. U.S. values advanced services more in the context of universal service, while Japan has a more welfare-oriented approach, the kind which emphasize guarantee of essential services for individuals. Broadband, when compared to traditional telephone network, supports a widerrange of uses. This is the case almost by definition - telephone is primarily a simultaneous, two-way, two-person, voice communication, whereas broadband simply means a large amount of bandwidth, without specifying the type of communication or services such network supports. Similarly, IoT may be greater in scope of uses it supports. This is again a consequence of the meaning of the term: greater scope of physical objects are (going to be) connected to the Internet. It is not difficult to imagine such services as health and safety monitoring services for the elderly and in the near future to be considered essential for the society. In case of IoT, however, there is still a degree of uncertainty regarding the diversity of network infrastructure. That is, it seems that there is a fair amount of chance that specific network is tied (such as by technological standard and contract terms) to specific set of devices and services. Home monitoring service, e-reader, and other devices and services may have different sets of network requirements to provide optimal services. In this sense, IoT may present a set of relatively new challenges to universal service policy. As we see in some existing products, network cost may be internally subsidized in case of bundled offers, and difficult to single out. We may face such questions as how meaningful is it to subsidize only network-related cost, ignoring service and device charges; how we can define supported services when speed may or may not be all that matters. Helpful lessons could be drawn from handling of difference of mobile and fixed broadband. The two are rather different from fixed broadband in terms of connectable devices and services offered.
机译:本文分为两个主要部分。首先,它回顾了美国和日本的宽带通用服务政策,并特别关注(重新)定义该政策中要处理的网络服务范围的过程和讨论。其次,它探讨了物联网通用服务策略的形式。物联网仍处于起步阶段,但在不久的将来,基于物联网的设备和服务有可能在社会生活中流行并发挥重要作用。本文采用一种方法来首先回顾通用服务策略如何确定该策略的目标服务。更具体地说,回顾了美国和日本最近关于将宽带网络纳入通用服务的政策讨论和正式程序。在美国,普遍服务宽带网络的正式包容过程发生在2010年初。在日本,正在进行的政策讨论可能会或可能不会在不久的将来导致宽带的普及。美国在普遍服务的背景下更加看重先进服务,而日本则采取了更加注重福利的方式,这种方式强调了为个人提供基本服务的保障。与传统电话网络相比,宽带支持更广泛的用途。几乎按定义就是这种情况-电话主要是同时进行的双向两人语音通信,而宽带仅表示大量带宽,而没有指定此类网络支持的通信或服务类型。同样,物联网可能会支持更大的用途。这又是该术语含义的结果:更大范围的物理对象已(将要)连接到Internet。不难想象,诸如老年人健康和安全监测服务之类的服务在不久的将来被认为对社会至关重要。但是,对于物联网,网络基础设施的多样性仍然存在一定程度的不确定性。也就是说,似乎特定的网络(例如,按照技术标准和合同条款)与特定的一组设备和服务相关联的可能性相当大。家庭监视服务,电子阅读器以及其他设备和服务可能具有不同的网络要求集,以提供最佳服务。从这个意义上讲,物联网可能对通用服务政策提出了一系列相对较新的挑战。正如我们在某些现有产品中看到的那样,如果捆绑提供优惠,网络成本可能会在内部得到补贴,并且很难一一列举。我们可能会面临这样的问题:仅补贴与网络相关的费用,而忽略服务和设备费用,这有多有意义?当速度至关重要时,我们如何定义支持的服务。可以从处理移动宽带和固定宽带的差异中汲取有益的教训。在提供的可连接设备和服务方面,两者与固定宽带有很大不同。

著录项

  • 作者

    Watanabe Tomoaki;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2015
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号