Transcript Voice over IP: Old regulation for new technology or new

Voice over IP:
Old regulation for new technology or
new approach of Broadband telephony ?
Thibault Verbiest
Attorney and Partner
ULYS Law Firm
Europa in information society
Sibiu, 2 June 2007
I. VoIP: evolution or revolution ?
Before:
Voice telephony through PSTN = Public Switched
Telephony Network
– Usual way top provide telephony
– Network usually maintained by incumbent operators
– Low capacity: mainly conceived for voice (not for
Internet or other applications)
– E.164 Numbers (ITU): international standards for
numbering based on PSTN
I. VoIP: evolution or revolution ?
Evolution to VoIP:
Voice through Internet Protocol
–
–
–
–
–
Usual way to transfer data (not voice)
Convergence on the internet: voice, data, video,…
Numbering = IP Addressing (not E.164 numbering)
Large band internet access
Free (internet access costs; e.g. Skype)
See next table estimate (from Probe Research, 2002)
I. VoIP: evolution or revolution ?
• Evolution IP vs. PSTN: clear takeover by IP over
PSTN
• Voice Traffic and revenue is switching from PSTN
• This is true for both IP voice transfer between
– operators (transit – wholesale market) and
– end users (retail)
• Terminals for VoIP are now close to the PSTN
handsets
I. VoIP: evolution or revolution ?
• Convergence ?
– Handsets proposed are close to the PSTN
– Development of the VoB (”VoIP maîtrisée”) or
“Controlled Voice over IP”
• proposed by the operators, often in an offer like “triple play”
(telephony + broadband + TV)
• No obvious difference for the end users
– Interconnection between VoIP and PSTN:
• Possible to call from a VoIP user to a PSTN and vice versa
• Attribution of geographic and non geographic numbers for
VoIP users
– Different users: nomadic or non nomadic use
I. VoIP: evolution or revolution ?
• Different cases for VoIp use:
– Two users calling from one IP address to one IP address
(with an appropriate software e.g.)
– One user calls the other on his PSTN phone: they will
have to pass through a internet service provider, and
gateway to interconnect the PST network
– The two users are calling with their PSTN phone: the
communication goes through IP gateways connected
with a IP style connection
II. Regulatory aspects in the EU
Objective of the EU Regulatory framework
– Promote Competition
•
•
•
•
Innovation
Choice, quality
Liberalization
Simplify market entry
– Promote interest of citizens
• Protection of citizens
– Universal service
– Consumer protection
• Privacy
• Dispute resolution
– Promote Single European Market
• + technology neutral regulation
 Difficult (contradicting ?) goals
II. Regulatory aspects in the EU
VoIP challenges today’s framework:
 Nomadic use of VoIP services is possible
 Users and service providers can be located in any country
(problems for emergency calls location, numbering,..)
 Cost structure is different
 Problem for interconnection rate e.g.

VoIP provides for users management, but do not
provide the transmission itself  VoIP is not really a
“service”
 Quality of services is not equivalent to PSTN
 Value-added services can be offered (e.g.Video)
II. Regulatory aspects in the EU
2 major documents at the EU level:
- EU Commission Staff Working Document “The
Treatment of Voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) under the
EU Regulatory Framework”, 14 June 2004
- ERG (European Regulatory Group) Common Statement
for VoIP regulatory approaches, February2005
II. Regulatory aspects in the EU
Both documents address several issues:
– Qualification of the services
• Authorization
• Universal Service obligations
– Numbering
• Numbering plan
• Portability
– Emergency calls
• Routing
• Caller location
– Data protection
– Service integrity
– Interconnection and interoperability
A. Types of VoIP offerings
Commission Staff Working Document: some
offerings are subject to regulatory
framework, some are not :
1. VoIP offering that comprises provision of
a product with no ongoing service (e.g.
Skype)  not in the scope of EU
Framework
A. Types of VoIP offerings
2. Corporate private networks used to provide
internal communications within large companies
3. VoIP technologies used within a public operators
core network (invisible to the end user ; e.g. transit
from operator 1 to operator 2)
 under authorization directive
 but not under specific obligations
A. Types of VoIP offerings
4. Publicly available Voice over IP services,
where access to and from E.164 numbers
 do fall under the EU regulatory
framework
 treatment depends of the qualification of
the service (PATS or ECS –or even US-)
B. Qualification
ECS (Electronic Communication Service)
• service normally provided for remuneration
• which consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of
signals on Electronic Communication network
PATS (Publicly Available Electronic Communication
Services)
• Service available to the public
• for originating and receiving national and international
calls
• And accessing to emergency services
• Through a number or numbers in a national or international
numbering plan( e.g. E.164..)
B. Qualification
ECS and PATS are both subject to regulation
– ECS has less rights/obligations than PATS
– PATS is supposed to meet some additional
criteria (e.g. offer calls to emergency services)
QUESTION: HOW TO QUALIFY ?
EU Commission recommends a self
qualification as PATS or ECS at the time of
notification
B. Qualification
Impact of the qualification ECS / PATS (non
exhaustive):
– only PATS subscribers have the right to port numbers
from other undertakings providing PATS
– only PATS suppliers can request access to carrier
selection and pre selection on the network of an
operator with significant market power
– only PATS subscribers have the right to be listed in a
public telephone directory
C. Universal Service
• Provision of a defined set of services to all
end-users at affordable price
–
–
–
–
–
Connection to the public network
Access to PATS at fixed location
Directory enquiry services and directories
Public pay phones
Special measures for disabled users
C. Universal Service
• Member States may designate one or more
operators to provide different elements of
US and/or cover different parts of national
territory
• No need if US covered
• Undertaking with US obligations can use
whatever technology is appropriate to meet
US requirements  this could include VoIP
C. Universal Service
US Funding :
- Optional for Member States
- Via Levies or public funds
- Possibility to exempt undertakings which have not
yet achieved any significant market presence
(turnover below a threshold)
VoIP providers can be contributors to US
VoIP can be part of the US scheme
D. Public Protection and Public
Safety
• Art 23 US Directive: members States ensure that
PATS providers at fixed locations tale all
reasonable measures to ensure uninterrupted
access to emergency services
Will depend upon the implementation in different
Member States
EU Commission proposes this obligation only applies
to providers of PATS who control or own the
underlying network structure
 EU Commission proposes information to the users
on this issue
E. Emergency services
• PATS have the obligations to provide access
to emergency service
• ECS do not have this obligation
 Commission suggests
• to inform ECS users on this issue
• the National Regulatory Authorities to encourage
ECS to do the same
E. Emergency services
Obligations:
Actual provision of emergency calls
+ Caller location
+ Routing Emergency Calls to the nearest Emergency
Service
 disproportionate to impose such obligations an all VoIP providers
(cf. Commission)
necessity to know the location of the user to able these
services
VoIP providers are encouraged to devise and rapidly
implement solutions
F. Interconnection
3 types:
• Interconnection to the PSTN
– VoIP to incumbent: usually regulated (interconnection reference
offers)
– VoIP to others: may be subject to regulation (new market analysis)
• Direct Interconnection between IP Networks
– Peering arrangements between ISP
• Interconnection between networks via the PSTN
– VoIP users can be connected by transiting via the PSTN network
– Less quality but usually more simple than direct interconnection or
only way possible
G. Numbering
A. Numbering
•
NRAs may attach specific conditions to the rights of
use of numbers
• Attribution must be transparent, objective, nondiscriminatory
• Directive do not stipulate what kind of number are to
be granted (geographic or non geographic)
 Commission underlines that numbering cannot be
discriminatory
G. Numbering
B. Number portability
•
•
Only PATS subscribers have the right to port
numbers from one PATS supplier to another
Old number of PSTN can be ported to VoIP
user if PATS
 Useful to declare as PATS to the NRA
III. National Examples
A. France
•
Numbering:
–
–
–
geographic and non geographic numbers
New prefix “09” for low cost services (e.g. VoIP and
converged services) due to consumers perception
For geographic number: prove of fixed location (ex:
control of the access line by the operator)
A. France
• Number portability
– Available for VoIP services meeting the portability
conditions
• Market Analysis
– ARCEP decision market analysis on market of access to
fixed retail narrowband access : VoIP and PSTN are
substitutable and are part of the same market
– but no need to regulate VoIP services since they are
indirectly regulated through Broadband regulation
B. Belgium
• Market access:
– Both PATS and Nomadic ECS are subject to
registration notification
• Numbering resources
– Both PATS and nomadic ECS have right for
numbering blocks including geographic
numbers
– Nomadic VoIP services geographic numbers are
subject to special conditions
B. Belgium
Conditions for geographic numbers for nomadic
VoIP ECS:
– precarious exemption by Ministerial Decree
– In the telephone zone where the users have their main
Internet connection
– Prohibition on providing access to emergency services
(possible change)
– Obligation to inform the users 3 times a year of the
differences between PATS and nomadic VoIP ECS (esp.
emergency services)
B. Belgium
• Portability (IBPT consultation):
– Right to portability only for PATS
– PATS subscribers have the right to port their number to
nomadic VoIP ECS but not entitled to use them for
nomadic VoIP
– Emergency services refuse calls from nomadic users !
– only way to have portability is to have PATS status
– But this status is linked to the provision of emergency
services !
 It seems that nomadic VoIP services cannot be PATS
B. Belgium
• Emergency services
– ECS cannot provide access (by Ministerial Decree)
– PATS must provide access to emergency service
IBPT propose a transitional regime where nomadic
VoIP service can qualify as PATS since the issue of
emergency service is not caused by their own choice
IBPT propose to find a solution for emergency calls and
routing from nomadic VoIP
B. Belgium
• Interconnection – regulation
– Belgacom (incumbent) – Telenet (alternative operator) litigation
– Telenet termination rates on Telenet’s PSTN are traditionally
higher than Belgacom’s rates  dispute 1
– Termination on new Telenet VoIP network are even lower but
Telenet asks for the same rates as for PSTN  dispute 2
IBPT Decision
Belgacom and Telenet must negotiate in good faith
 In the meantime, the (higher) charges of Telenet will apply
C. United Kingdom
OFCOM has issued a “mandatory industry
code” as May 29 2007 (some days ago):
• Providers must make clear where access to the emergency
services is not offered
• Providers must make labels available making clear that
emergency calls cannot be made and recommend that this
label is fixed on the equipment
• An announcement should be played each time the user tries
to reach emergency services when there is no “999” access
C. United Kingdom
• The users should be given the option to receive labels for
the equipment which indicate any dependence on home
power supply
• If user location is available, the user should be required to
provide the address of the place where VoIP service will be
used and advised to update the information
• Providers should inform that directory assistance, directory
listings, access to the operator are not available
• The provider must inform the user about his ability to keep
his number if he chooses to switch providers at a later date
CONCLUSION
Need for a new approach ?
Will it be harmonized (differences between MS) ?
Is VoIP to be followed by other new technologies? (technical
neutrality of regulation to be respected)
Thanks for your attention
[email protected]