English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article compares the telecommunications consumer dispute resolution scheme in Australia, Japan and Korea based on the telecommunications consumer policy principles developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 2011 and the guidelines and recommendations developed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) in 2013. This article concludes that the Australian consumer dispute resolution scheme (the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman scheme) appears to be the best practice among these three jurisdictions studied, followed by the consumer scheme in Korea. Both the current Japanese scheme and the proposed new scheme in Japan appear to be less appropriate due to the foreseeable inadequate accessibility and insufficient consumer redress authority created under the scheme. Nonetheless, much experience and exceptional practices can all be shared and learned by the regulatory decisionmakers in all three countries.

Things to learn and things to abandon: A comparative study of the communications consumer redress scheme in Australia, Japan and Korea