the national regulator against the rise of regional regulation (Europe, Asia, North and Latin America) with a global co-ordinator becoming more important, somewhat in the way that the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) has grown in significance as the de facto setter of Internet standards and processes. Regulators, through informal networks, have been learning from each other and in particular the developing economies have rapidly picked up the main regulatory frameworks from OECD countries. Whether there will be global governance in any areas with a global regulator by 2030 is open to question. Whether it will treat convergence of communications and media content as one subject is also open to surmise. Certainly there will be a long-term global discussion over Internet regulation and engineering, for its new infrastructure form as the mobile Internet, with the role of the United States becoming less dominant. Here we should note that with the growth of packet voice up to 2030, the Internet and its successors will be the main channel for voice traffic, both global flows and local connections. In contrast, at a local level, we may expect that the coming generation of networks (based on AWTs) will often be owned and directed by local municipalities as alternative operators. Decision taking on regulation has passed through a sea change from protection of the incumbent national operator and its wholly owned infrastructure to consumer protection (e.g. from price gouging on termination rates internationally) and will move on towards enforcement of security measures. However, the incumbents can be expected to fight a rearguard action to protect their sunk costs in existing infrastructures and also to protect any new NGN infrastructure framework investments against the price onslaught of VoIP, claiming it will destroy Universal Service Obligation costs, and SO should be regulated and high termination prices should be enforced. The United States and Japan have already accepted that new broadband network infrastructure