Tentative first steps : an assessment of the Uruguay Round agreement on services

A major result of the Uruguay Round was the creation of a General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The GATS greatly extends coverage of the multilateral trading system, establishing rules and disciplines on policies affecting access to service markets. In this paper, the author asks: what does the GATS do to bind policies? And has it established a mechanism likely to induce significant liberalization through future rounds of negotiations? The GATS consists of two elements: 1) a set of general concepts, principles, and rules that apply across the board to measures affecting trade in services; and 2) specific commitments on national treatment and market access. These apply only to service activities listed in a member's schedule - reflecting the agreement's"positive-list"approach to determining coverage - and only to the extent that sector-specific or cross-sectoral qualifications or conditions are not maintained. The impact of the GATS depends largely on the specific commitments made by members, and sectoral coverage is far from universal. High-income countries scheduled about half of their service sectors; developing countries as a group (including Eastern European countries in transition) scheduled only 11 percent. And the sectors scheduled often continue to be subject to measures that violate national treatment or limit market access. High-income countries scheduled only 28 percent of the universe of services without exceptions to national treatment or market access obligations. For developing countries, that figure is only 6.5 percent. Much remains to be done. The GAT's weaknesses include: 1) a lack of transparency. No information is generated on sectors, subsectors, and activities in which no commitments are scheduled - most often the sensitive areas where restrictions and discriminatory practices abound; 2) the sector-specificity of liberalization commitments. Negotiations were driven by the concerns of major players of each industry, leading to an emphasis on"absolute"sectoral reciprocity, limiting the scope for incremental liberalization, tradeoffs across issues, and an economywide perspective; and 3) the limited number of generic rules. Rather than lock in liberal situations that exist, the GATS allows for the future imposition of restrictions (creating"negotiating chips"). To foster nondiscriminatory liberalization, sectoral agreeements should be firmly imbedded in a framework of general rules and disciplines. Many of the framework's general principles apply only if specific commitments have been made. Therefore they are not general. Proposals for improving the GATS should probably build on the existing structure as mush as possible. Possibilities include the following: 1) ultimately, apply the same rules to goods and services. Eliminate the artificial distinction between the two; 2) adopt a negative-list approach to scheduling commitments for the sake of transparency; 3) eliminate overlap between national treatment and market access; 4) develop generic,"horizontal"disciplines for the different modes of supply through which service markets may be contested; 5) explore the possibility of converting quota-like market access restrictions to price-based equivalent measures, thus ensuring that the most-favored-nation and national treatment principles are satisfied; 6) make framework disciplines general by eliminating all instances in which rules are conditional on the scheduling of specific commitments; and 7) agree to a formula-based approach for liberalizing and expanding the GAT's sectoral coverage in future negotiations.Economic Theory&Research,Environmental Economics&Policies,Payment Systems&Infrastructure,Decentralization,Health Economics&Finance,Health Economics&Finance,Economic Theory&Research,Trade and Services,TF054105-DONOR FUNDED OPERATION ADMINISTRATION FEE INCOME AND EXPENSE ACCOUNT,ICT Policy and Strategies

Using a common accessibility profile to improve accessibility

People have difficulties using computers. Some have more difficulties than others. There is a need for guidance in how to evaluate and improve the accessibility of systems for users. Since different users have considerably different accessibility needs, accessibility is a very complex issue.ISO 9241-171 defines accessibility as the "usability of a product, service, environment or facility by people with the widest range of capabilities." While this definition can help manufacturers make their products more accessible to more people, it does not ensure that a given product is accessible to a particular individual.A reference model is presented to act as a theoretical foundation. This Universal Access Reference Model (UARM) focuses on the accessibility of the interaction between users and systems, and provides a mechanism to share knowledge and abilities between users and systems. The UARM also suggests the role assistive technologies (ATs) can play in this interaction. The Common Accessibility Profile (CAP), which is based on the UARM, can be used to describe accessibility.The CAP is a framework for identifying the accessibility issues of individual users with particular systems configurations. It profiles the capabilities of systems and users to communicate. The CAP can also profile environmental interference to this communication and the use of ATs to transform communication abilities. The CAP model can be extended as further general or domain specific requirements are standardized.The CAP provides a model that can be used to structure various specifications in a manner that, in the future, will allow computational combination and comparison of profiles.Recognizing its potential impact, the CAP is now being standardized by the User Interface subcommittee the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission

What’s the Hang Up? The Future of VoIP Regulation and Taxation in New Hampshire

Alice in Austria wishes to call her friend Bob in Boston, using a Boston area code to avoid charges for an international call. Using VoIP, Alice may initiate her call from any location in Austria where she may find Internet access. Once Alice connects to the Internet, she can transmit her call with the aid of a VoIP service provider, such as Skype. In order to hear and communicate with Bob, Alice can rely on a microphone and a headset that she can plug into her computer. Through VoIP, not only may Alice carry on a telephone conversation, but most service providers also allow her to record conversations and manage other information, such as voice mail. The rise of Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) services “means nothing less than the death of the traditional telephone business,” as the ability to make free calls over a high-speed Internet connection in the future “undermines the existing pricing model for telephony.” This disruptive, convergent technology is blurring the boundary between Internet services and telephone services because VoIP functions like the traditional telephone system, but travels as ones and zeros through a broadband Internet connection. As a result, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has questioned whether to classify VoIP as an information service, generally free from FCC regulation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, or as a telecommunication service, subject to a comprehensive regulatory regime and common carrier obligations. This note discusses why most VoIP services, with the exception of phone-to-phone Internet Protocol (“IP”) telephony, should be classified as information services and, as such, should remain free from state taxation – focusing specifically on the taxation in New Hampshire. Part II focuses on the technology of VoIP and how it differs from traditional telephony. Part III discusses the distinction between information and telecommunication services in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, whether VoIP may qualify as Internet access in light of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (“ITFA”) of 1998, and the federal regulation of VoIP. Finally, Part IV addresses the debate over taxation of VoIP in New Hampshire and discusses why VoIP services should not yet be taxed by the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration in light of federal law and the best interests of local businesses and consumers

Techno-economic viability of integrating satellite communication in 4G networks to bridge the broadband digital divide

Bridging the broadband digital divide between urban and rural areas in Europe is one of the main targets of the Digital Agenda for Europe. Though many technological options are proposed in literature, satellite communication has been identified as the only possible solution for the most rural areas, due to its global coverage. However, deploying an end-to-end satellite solution might, in some cases, not be cost-effective. The aim of this study is to give insights into the economic effectiveness of integrating satellite communications into 4G networks in order to connect the most rural areas (also referred to as white areas) in Europe. To this end, this paper proposes a converged solution that combines satellite communication as a backhaul network with 4G as a fronthaul network to bring enhanced broadband connectivity to European rural areas, along with a techno-economic model to analyse the economic viability of this integration. The model is based on a Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model for 5 years, taking into account both capital and operational expenditures, and aims to calculate the TCO as well as the Average Cost Per User (ACPU) for the studied scenarios. We evaluate the suggested model by simulating a hypothetical use case for two scenarios. The first scenario is based on a radio access network connecting to the 4G core network via a satellite link. Results for this scenario show high operational costs. In order to reduce these costs, we propose a second scenario, consisting of caching the popular content on the edge to reduce the traffic carried over the satellite link. This scenario demonstrates a significant operational cost decrease (more than 60%), which also means a significant ACPU decrease. We evaluate the robustness of the results by simulating for a range of population densities, hereby also providing an indication of the economic viability of our proposed solution across a wider range of areas

Universal Design: Planning and Design for All

[Excerpt] This report attempts to develop and illustrate the concept of universal design. The aim of universal design is to develop theory, principles and solutions to enable everybody to use the same physical solutions to the greatest extent possible, whether it be buildings, outdoor-areas, means of communication or household goods. Universal design opposes, ideologically and politically, all unnecessary and stigmatizing specialized solutions, whether they are intended for people with disabilities or other groups of the population. Equal status, equal treatment and equal merit are key concepts. The discussion in this report covers extensive spheres such as planning, architecture and product design. One may object that we try to cover too large an area within a relatively brief report. It is therefore important to emphasise that our main intention is to include more professionals and politicians in the further discussion of universal design or design for all

An Analysis of the Notion of Need for the Representation of Public Services

Many Public Administrations structure their services around the notion of users’ need. However, there is a gap between private, subjectively perceived needs (self-attributed) and needs that are attributed by PA to citizens (heteroattributed). Because of the gap, citizens’ needs are often only partially satisfied by PAs services. This gap is in part due to the fact that the meaning of the word “need” is ambiguous and full of antinomic nuances. The purpose of this paper is to formulate a definition of “need” suitable for citizens’ needs management with respect to PA’s services offering, and to provide an accurate ontological analysis of the notion of “need” and the network of concepts that relate to it