While agreeing with many proposals by the U.K. Office of Communic...

approach that Ofcom proposed in its consultation document regarding publicly available telephone services (PATS) would “stifle competition and seriously hinder the emergence of innovative VoB services.” Ofcom had said communications providers that didn’t provide PATS should have neither the obligations nor the benefits, which include the ability to port numbers. But CompTel argued Ofcom should rule that number portability can be provided to non-PATS providers. It said the distinction between PATS and non-PATS that Ofcom relied on assumed that VoB services provided without fulfilling the definition of PATS were of lower quality or lower value to the consumer. But it said the “U.S. experience clearly demonstrates that those VoB providers that do not qualify as PATS under EU law offer a variety of innovative services that go far beyond what traditional carriers are offering.” It said the distinctions between PATS and non-PATS were already “very blurry” and would “disappear in the near future.” CompTel also said excluding non-PATS from geographic number portability was “a significant market obstacle for new entrants” because customers, especially small business and residential, would be “very reluctant to migrate to those providers if they [couldn’t] keep their telephone numbers.” CompTel also said VoB was “a global issue” that required “close cooperation” between European and U.S. regulators. In line with principles it filed with the FCC earlier this year (CD April 1 p13), CompTel told Ofcom: (1) “Decisions regarding VoB issues should be clearly articulated and easily applied to all network configurations which carry VoB traffic.” (2) “A ‘pure’ VoB provider that does not own, operate or control customers’ access to the Internet or the PSTN should not be subject to traditional telecommunications regulations.” (3) “Access to European incumbents’ last-mile bottleneck facilities must remain available to competitive carriers providing VoB at TELRIC rates.” (4) “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.” In separate comments, Vonage stressed it had concerns relating to number portability, network integrity, emergency services and other obligations imposed on providers of PATS. It applauded Ofcom for recognizing that “due to inherent technological differences associated with the underlying technology used to provide VoB services, certain requirements imposed on PATS operations cannot be offered by VoB providers, nor as a policy matter should VoB providers be required to do so.” It said competition had already resulted in VoB providers offering functions and features not available from traditional telephone service providers and that would continue. Vonage warned Ofcom against policies that could hurt competition and adoption of VoB services. Specifically, it said, Ofcom must allow all communications service providers to “take advantage of number portability. To shelter traditional telephone companies from true competition by prohibiting VoB providers to utilize number portability will not serve the public interest.”