U.S. Providers Urge European Regulators Not To Harm VoIP
Echoing concerns expressed by VoIP providers in the U.S., parties told the European Commission (EC) in comments it shouldn’t harm the growth of IP-based communications by imposing unnecessary regulations. The EC -- which has generally kept the Internet free of traditional telecom regulations -- has launched a proceeding to examine issues related to IP-based communications, asking for comments on the appropriate regulatory framework for VoIP services that utilize numbering resources and provide access to or from the PSTN.
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.
CompTel/Ascent called for “close coordination” between European and U.S. regulators, in particular between the EC and the FCC. It said guidelines the EC and the U.S. could use included: (1) “Decisions regarding VoIP issues should be clearly articulated and easily applied to all network configurations that carry VoIP traffic.” (2) “A pure VoIP provider that does not own, operate or control customers’ access to the Internet or the PSTN should not be subject to traditional telecommunications regulation.” (3) “Access to European incumbents’ last-mile bottleneck facilities must remain available to competitive carriers providing VoIP at TELRIC rates.” (4) “To the extent that VoIP services are used as a substitute for traditional telecommunications service, issues such as emergency access should be resolved through industry cooperation with state and federal regulators.” (5) “The need for and the interests of national security… should be addressed through separate and targeted proceedings which can be addressed separate from the economic issues without relying on a regulatory classification of VoIP services.”
AT&T urged the EC and the European Regulators Group to address situations where operators with significant market power (SMP) “might abuse their market power at the network layer to the detriment of competition in the applications layer, including VoIP services.” It expressed concerns that broadband access providers could “unreasonably impede” access to the Internet content of rival applications providers by blocking access to IP addresses, websites or platforms, or by giving preferential access to their own applications: “Where such behaviors could be judged to jeopardize end-to-end connectivity, national regulatory authorities should also consider the case for using their powers… to apply appropriate remedies to all broadband access providers that control access to end-users and not just those designated as SMP.”
AT&T agreed with the EC that use of VoIP technology wouldn’t itself be a basis for exemption from contributing to universal service funding, but noted that other technology-neutral exemptions, such as turnover thresholds, would likely apply to many new entrant VoIP service providers. It said the financing mechanism should be “competitively neutral, transparent and explicit in its methodology to ensure that the universal service obligation and funding mechanism does not unfairly prejudice certain service types or service providers.” Universal service funding schemes currently operate only in 3 European Union member states -- France, Spain and Italy.
Addressing social policy issues, AT&T said “mechanical application of traditional requirements” developed for circuit-switched based networks “to IP-based applications, risks stunting development of new and important services, features and functionalities that could actually improve consumer interests.” It said imposing an obligation to provide access to emergency services on “non-PATS” [publicly available telephone service] service providers “may not be technically feasible and could be disproportionate.” AT&T also stressed that access to geographic numbers for VoIP services was “vital.”
Pulver.com urged the EC to “lend additional clarity to the regulatory landscape,” so all IP-based communications companies, including incumbent telecom providers moving to IP, “may proceed and make business decisions with certainty.” It said the Commission should “not regulate unless necessary” and “ensure that no entity can leverage its market power to stifle choice and innovation.” “The default assumption should be that an IP-based provider should not be regulated until it is demonstrated that the entity is violating the social good,” it said. But it said while the EC “should ensure that application service providers have reasonable access to, and can make full use of, last-mile transmission facilities… Until we find a technology that affords open access to limitless capacity for all consumers and service providers, there will always be some degree of imperfect competition in last-mile access.”
Pulver.com said technological neutrality and the concept of voice as an application meant “voice could always be considered an application, regardless of technology or delivery medium.” It said voice, data, video, instant messaging and other similar services could “readily be recognized as non-telecom applications.” It said “non-regulation” should apply to all IP-based providers, but the transmission paths used to provide those applications should remain subject to regulatory oversight.