Voice over IP: Old regulation for new technology or
new approach of Broadband telephony ? Thibault Verbiest
Attorney and PartnerULYS Law Firm
Europa in information societySibiu, 2 June 2007
I. VoIP: evolution or revolution ?
Before: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: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 EUObjective of the EU Regulatory framework
– Promote CompetitionPromote Competition• Innovation• Choice, quality• Liberalization• Simplify market entry
– Promote interest of citizensPromote interest of citizens• Protection of citizens
– Universal service– Consumer protection
• Privacy• Dispute resolution
– Promote Single European MarketPromote 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 EUBoth 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. QualificationECS (Electronic Communication Service)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 PATS (Publicly Available Electronic Communication Services)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 ? QUESTION: HOW TO QUALIFY ? EU Commission recommends a self EU Commission recommends a self
qualification as PATS or ECS at the time of qualification as PATS or ECS at the time of notificationnotification
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 USVoIP 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 servicesWill depend upon the implementation in different
Member StatesEU 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 disproportionate to impose such obligations an all VoIP providers (cf. Commission)(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, non-discriminatory
• 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
– butbut 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 serviceIBPT 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 DecisionIBPT DecisionBelgacom 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
