EUROPE SAID TO IMPOSE REGULATION ON ‘SOME TYPE’ OF VoIP
While VoIP is still going through its early stages in Europe, it’s clear that “some type of VoIP” will be regulated, speakers said at an audioconference sponsored by Communications Daily Wed. “The question is not whether [VoIP] should be regulated,” said Analysys Senior Consultant James Allen: “The question is what parts of VoIP will be categorized as those types of services that are regulated, and what part of VoIP might escape” regulation. For example, he said a service like BT broadband voice “will probably be considered to be a public electronic communications service, which is regulated… We should not say that this is economic regulation… this is mostly social regulation, consumer protection in a lot of senses.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
BT Group Strategy Mgr.-Operational Regulation Thomas Kiedrowski said the U.K. was focused on VoIP numbering and consumer protection issues, such as access to emergency services. He said the U.K. Office of Communications (OFCOM) was undertaking a consultation on the numbering and was expected to have a formal consultation on consumer protection aspects. “At the moment, the debate is very much focused on voice,” he said: “But voice is just one application… I think you've got to look at a bigger picture. I would encourage all regulators to start looking at multimedia services, rather than only voice services.”
Meanwhile, Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority Senior Advisor Olli Matilla said there was “no any straight answer to how to regulate VoIP” in Finland: “I think we have to [address] different aspects that are related to this question.” He said VoIP services are “much more technical oriented, so we have to look also at the technical regulation side.” Matilla said Finland introduced its “general attitude” with regards to VoIP in a rulemaking it released last Oct., when TeliaSonera launched public VoIP service. He said the decision reflected Finland’s “technology neutral” approach to regulating VoIP and was based on the existing regulation of PATS.
Matilla said the Finnish regulator decided VoIP was “comparable” with PATS. As a result, he said TeliaSonera was required to “follow all national regulation applied to normal telephone services,” such as: (1) Provide international calling using a common European international access code “00.” (2) Provide access to emergency services. (3) Provide itemized billing. (4) Collecting users’ contact information. (5) “Equip the network with technical instruments and features which allow legal interception of electronic communication. Even [though] we don’t know how it’s technically possible, we had to put this obligation also.” (6) Provide caller ID. (7) Ensure service availability in emergency circumstances. “There are also a lot of security obligations,” he said.
“The list you just heard runs to the problem,” Kiedrowski objected: “Service providers are keen to provide access to emergency services, but they fear to do so, because when you do it under the EU regulations, all the other applications that were just listed kick in. So, that is a significant barrier to providing that service to customers.” He said regulators shouldn’t impose “burdensome regulations” to encourage service providers to provide access to emergency services: “I am pleased to say that so far we haven’t seen signs of that from the U.K. regulator, but that is a serious issue of concern for a lot of service providers, especially smaller ones.”
Matilla said it was important to reach a “cooperation between national regulators and the European Commission” with regards to addressing VoIP services: “All countries in Europe have different concerns and [it’s] important” to try to avoid different interpretation of the framework. Kiedrowski said the problem with the new electronic communications framework, which was designed for the next 10- 15 years, was that it was “based on the difference between fixed and mobile. I think this is a real problem for the regulators at the European or national level.” He said the role of the EC was “to ensure that there is a consistency approach through the European Union.”
Speakers agreed consumer education was one of the critical issues needed to be addressed. “It’s a question, I think, as much of regulators and of industry educating consumers, getting them used to the product, expanding the market and then getting familiar with it, rather than running around… and thinking how do you regulate it,” Kiedrowski said. Allen agreed: “The worst possible outcome would be that somebody took a direct” regulation of an incumbent with significant market power and “try to force that regulation into the VoIP services. It’s certainly true that consumer education is going to be a major part of it.” He said regulators and the industry should educate consumers about differences in the quality of services available from different types of telephone services: “We are not trying to force all different types of service to look like a mystical gold standard.”