U.S., European Competitors Seek EU Action on VoIP

Like CompTel, VATM said while national regulatory agencies should be cautious about regulating VoIP service, and regulatory restraint in the VoIP sector isn’t justified regarding the European incumbents if the effect would be to limit competition and boost the potential for market-dominating companies to transfer their market power into the VoIP sector. It said the national regulatory authority (NRA) must ensure there’s no transfer of European incumbents’ market power from the leased-lines and DSL market to the VoIP sector. They also agreed that the use of geographic phone numbers must remain permissible for VoIP products.

VATM urged the commission to ensure that competitors have access to incumbent carriers’ wholesale products essential to provide VoIP. “Access to the last mile in the broadband market must be opened up to all providers of VoIP products,” it said. Addressing emergency calling and surveillance issues, VATM said regulators should let the industry find the solutions. Referring to the success in implementing the emergency number obligation in wireless, it said VoIP industry should be given “an appropriate timeframe for developing these innovations to market readiness.” It also noted that while it was technically possible to provide VoIP surveillance, “it will be some time before viable concepts are ready for market.”

While broadly concurring with the EC proposal, the European Competitive Telecom Assn. (ECTA) said: (1) “Market players must enjoy a genuine choice between becoming an ECS [electronic communications service] or PATS [publically available telephone service] provider.” But it warned that ECS status shouldn’t become “a loophole for incumbents seeking to evade regulation at the retail level.” (2) “A more evolutionary approach to emergency services in line with technological developments is needed if PATS status is to be a meaningful option for VoIP entrants.” (3) “The Commission needs to reinforce the need for both geographic and non-geographic numbers to be available to all VoIP providers.” (4) “Specific care needs to be given to supporting the emergence of nomadic offerings as this represents one of the most exciting additional features that VoIP services offer for users. An accommodating approach to numbering and emergency services will be important.”

ECTA said it supported “little or no” regulation of VoIP-using applications and services that aren’t considered substitutes for regular PSTN services. It welcomed the EC suggestion that “where there is no ongoing service for remuneration a VoIP product is not subject to the telecom rules.” But it said “it may be the case that VoIP technologies will be ancillary to other products where there is an element of ongoing paid-for service,” such as subscription to an online multiplayer game, and “such services should not be subject to NRF [national regulatory framework].” ECTA also urged the Commission to “review the potential for forbearance from the sector- specific consumer regulation in the universal service directive where appropriate.” ECTA said only services meeting “the various elements of the PATS definition are PATS” and “the directives are not to be read as providing the basis for imposing obligations -- in particular the provision of emergency services -- on operators that do not wish to be PATS providers.”

Vonage urged the EC to ensure European Union member states adopt classifications and regulations that are uniform as applied to VoIP providers. It said it was “encouraged” by many of the EC proposals, such as recognizing the distinction between a publicly available ECS and a PATS, but warned that “the criteria used to distinguish between an ECS and PATS provider should be uniform throughout all member states.” Vonage, however, expressed concern about the way the EC addressed some other issues, which it said required further study. It said it didn’t support a requirement imposed by NRAs on publicly available ECS that such providers must allow for the provision of emergency services without the user having to provide location information.

Union Network International (UNI) -- the global union federation -- said “universality and affordable access are the key.” It expressed concern that failure to require VoIP carriers to contribute to universal service and the use of the PSTN would “distort the marketplace, providing commercial advantage to carriers based on regulatory arbitrage rather than innovation or superior service. Since VoIP carriers benefit from the ability to connect their customers to every other customer, they must contribute to the support of that network.”

UNI also urged the EC to endorse the following principles: (1) “Rules must be technology neutral.” (2) VoIP is a telecom not an information service, because it “starts as voice and ends as voice.” (3) “There should be access to IP-telephony at a fair price.” (4) VoIP carriers should be subject to public safety requirements, including emergency calling service. (5) VoIP operators should guarantee “a reasonable quality” and comply with network reliability requirements. (6) VoIP companies must provide access for people with disabilities and must be subject to consumer protections. (7) “There must be a special series of numbers reserved for IP-telephony and consumers shall have the possibility of number portability.” (8) “The VoIP transition must protect and advance good jobs.”