Austria The New Regulatory Framework (NRF) generally is based on technological neutrality, i.e. allowing providers to offer services based on IP technology without any specific regulation necessary. In October 2005 the Austrian regulatory authority issued “Guidelines for Providers of VoIP Services” that aimed to provide regulatory clarity to operators offering public VoIP services in Austria. One of the fundamental conclusions of the guidelines document is the definition of 2 distinct classes of VoIP services:
• Class A VoIP Services: Publicly offered VoIP services providing access to and/or from the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) are defined as being a Publicly Available Telephone Service (PATS) and an Electronic Communication Service (ECS).
• Class B VoIP Services: Publicly offered VoIP Services for voice communication between Internet users without providing access to the PSTN are de-fined as being neither PATS nor ECS.
The guidelines document further provides information regarding access to emergency services, general authorization procedures as well as numbering issues. Short chapters on legal interception, interconnection and competition conclude the document.
VoIP has been classified in two categories, independently from the class A / class B distinction above:
• Voice over Broadband (VoB): VoB is defined as service offered in combination with (broadband) Internet access where VoIP technology is used for voice transport within the VoB provider’s access network. Examples are Voice-over-DSL or Voice-over-CATV. In general, VoB services offer full connec-tivity to the PSTN, offer controlled quality in the access network and are deemed to be largely equivalent to traditional voice telephony services.
• Voice over Internet (VoI): VoI is defined as service offered on the basis of the Public Internet. In general, VoI services are not bundled with the sub-scriber’s Internet access. The access to the customer is realized using an existing (broadband) Internet access provided by a third party access pro-vider; therefore the Internet is used as access network to the customer. VoI is offered in various flavours ranging from Internet-only services to full PSTN connectivity.
As stated in the current draft market definition, VoB services are to be included in the relevant retail markets (fixed networks voice telephony access markets for residential and no-residential customers, fixed networks minutes markets for residential and non-residential customers, national and interna-tional calls) as well as the relevant wholesale markets (termination and origination). VoI is to be included in neither of these markets.
Belgium The VoIP element is not a key figure in the decision between PATS/ECS (public available telephone service or electronic communication service). The service is checked against the PATS conditions (in- and outgoing voice communication, national and international, with access to emergency services and using a national and international number plan), and if the service complies, it is classified as PATS, otherwise as ECS.
Czech Republic
These services are considered as telecommunication services and providers have only to be registered according to the General Licence obligations. No licence is required. VoIP is not considered as public telephone service, but as data transmission – no regulatory approach has been undertaken. Denmark In 2004 NITA (National IT and Telecom Agency) publicly consulted relevant parties in Denmark on the question of whether there were barriers (also regulatory barriers) preventing widespread use of VoIP in Denmark. The review and consultation was concluded in March 2005 The consultation and analysis resulted in a number of information initiatives and minor legislative adjustments primarily related to provision of location information in relation to emergency services.
France ARCEP (L´Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes) has differentiated between the various services using the Internet Protocol: voice over IP, which designates the technology using Internet Protocol for the transport of the voice, is also used for voice services on broad band (or VoB) on an Internet access network with speeds higher than 128 kbit/s, and where quality is controlled by the operator who provides the ser-vice. These services cannot be compared with the offers of voice over Internet (VoIP), which use the public Internet, because their quality of service is not controlled by the service supplier.
France (cont.)
The question of separation between voice over broadband services and voice on the PSTN was examined by the competition Council and then by the European Commission. The former wanted to include VoB in the relevant markets covering fixed telephony services. The latter agreed with ARCEP’s modification to include services using VoIP technology in the pertinent market in the case that they are substitutable with traditional services, imposing obligations on the “mainly telephony” access services, as well as on the telephony services associated with them. Thus, it was considered that the rele-vant markets for interpersonal communications from a fixed telephone is conditional with the use of access to the PSTN. ARCEP has indicated that it would keep under review the market segment associated with multiservice access and would be ready to modify its decision not to impose obligation on this market segment.
Germany In September 2005 BNetzA (Bundesnetzagentur) published key elements of the regulatory treatment of Voice over IP. These key elements take account of the fact that VoIP services are only at the start of their development in the marketplace and that it is too early to say how viable existing and future business models will prove to be. In BNetzA's view, therefore, it is not helpful, and ultimately not even possible, to draw up a definitive and extensive body of rules for VoIP today covering all the regulatory issues that are bound to arise.
In general providers of VoIP services are treated just like any other service provider. Their rights and obligations depend on how the respective service is classified according to its features under regulatory aspects especially telecommunications services, publicly available telephone service, operation of telecommunications networks or telecommunications systems.
BNetzA considers however transitional arrangements for technical reasons a suitable means by which to encourage existing innovation potential and by which to respond to public interest in the fulfilment of legal obligations. Yet it is important that, at the end of the development process of VoIP services, different services (PSTN, VoIP etc.) can coexist with equal status. In the medium term, VoIP services will have to satisfy the same criteria as traditional services.
BNetzA will keep a close watch on the further development of VoIP and take regulatory decisions if necessary, like it has proceeded in the past. For example BNetzA decided in its market analysis that national calls via VoIP services are part of the relevant retail market for national calls at fixed loca-tions. So national calls (VoIP and PSTN) of the SMP provider are subject to the same regulation.
Greece There is no specific regulation for VoIP at this point in time. EETT (the National regulatory authority) issued a public consultation for VoIP services on 19 May 2006. This consultation, among other issues, seeks the views of the market players regarding authorisation for VoIP services providers, numbering, access to emergency numbers, QoS, interconnection, etc. Based on the results of the public consultation and the analysis of the relevant markets, EETT will take decision on regulation of VoIP services.
Hungary From regulatory point of view, VoIP is only an alternative technology to PSTN. Therefore the treatment of VoIP service is similar to fixed telephone ser-vices.
Ireland All service providers intending to offer an electronic communication service to the public must provide a notification to ComReg of this intention. This notification entitles the service provider to a General Authorisation, which is subject to a set of conditions.
Further to these conditions, all services which qualify as Electronic Communications Services (ECS) must comply with a basic set of legislative obliga-tions. If the service further satisfies the criteria to be categorised as a Publicly Available Telephone Service (PATS), then further legislative obligations apply. Perhaps the most crucial difference between the provision of an ECS or PATS is that when providing a PATS VoIP service, access to the emer-gency services must be ensured. Other PATS-related obligations include user rights such as access to directory inquiry and operator assistance ser-vices, the right to have an entry in a directory, and various network related obligations.
Italy VoIP services have been recently regulated by AGCOM (Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni). VoIP service can be provided using any IP identi-fication system (e.g. SIP or H.323 URIs) or E.164 numbers. VoIP providers can use geographic E.164 numbers already used for PATS services using TDM technology. Nomadism with geographic numbers is only allowed within the district identified by the district code of the numbers used by the opera-tor.
Luxembourg Following the recommendations of the European Commission to special provisions are foreseen other than for public telecommunication operators. For interconnection to the public network a licence is required from the regulator.
Netherlands OPTA’s (Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit) market analysis shows that VoB services are part of the same relevant access and con-veyance markets at the retail level as traditional fixed telephony (PSTN) services. OPTA applies a price squeeze test for both PSTN and VoB services. However, the price floor on VoB services is more relaxed than on PSTN services, in the sense that KPN is allowed to use lower VoB tariffs than PSTN tariffs without ex-ante approval by OPTA. This price floor for VoB services only apply to the incumbent (KPN). Other obligations which apply to the VoB services of the incumbent: transparency and non-discrimination.
Poland The Polish Telecommunications Law reflects the EU Directives and thus there is no separate regulatory approach towards Voice over IP. UKE (Polish Office of Electronic Communications) is holding a consultation in order to identify barriers to the nomadic use of VoIP services.
Portugal ANACOM (Autoridade Nacional de Comunicações) launched during November 2005 a public consultation on the regulatory approach to voice services based on IP technology (VoIP) which led to a Decision in February 2006 which distinguished between two types of services: (a) services provided at a single fixed location and under conditions perceived by the user as equivalent to those of traditional PSTN, which will be treated as a regular PSTN ser-vice; (b) services of typically nomadic use i.e. able to be used on several locations. The “30”numbering range was opened to accommodate the provi-sion of nomadic VoIP services. The providers of nomadic VoIP services with numbers of the national Numbering Plan, when on national territory, must ensure the routing of VoIP calls to 112. All VoIP providers, including those of nomadic use, will be able to negotiate the terms of interconnection con-tracts with other service providers, keeping the same basic principles of the current interconnection agreements.
Slovak Republic
According to national legislation, VoIP service is considered as an electronic communications service (ECS). There are some general obligations for providers of ECS. Problems concerning VoIP versus PATS ( Publicly Available Telephony Service ) in context with data location to provide for Emer-gency Calls ( 112 ). (Location data shall be any data processed in the network indicating the geographic location of terminal equipment of the user of publicly available service. The location data, other than traffic data may be processed only if they are made anonymous or with the consent of the user of public network or service, and in the scope and time necessary for provision of the value added service).
Spain Public numbering resources are allocated to fixed telephone services available to the public and to VoIP, and certain area codes are granted. The prin-ciple of technological neutrality is applied so that the conditions established for telephone service available to the public are applied to VoIP services which, due to their functional characteristics, can be considered as telephone service.
and applying the generic regulatory framework defined throughout Europe for the electronic communications services to the VoIP modalities. Sweden The same regulations apply to all undertakings that provide fixed telephony services.
United Kingdom
For VoIP service, OFTEL considers this should be regulated as a publicly available telephone service if any of the following apply: the service is mar-keted as a substitute for traditional PSTN services, or the service appears to customers as a substitute for public voice telephony, or the service pro-vides the customer’s sole means of access to the traditional circuit switched PSTN.
Norway Three main categories of VoB offerings have been identified by the regulator:
Category 1: VoB offerings which are not any-to-any communication enabled. Within this category no gateway to the PSTN/ISDN or mobile networks
exists, and hence no possibility to call or receive calls from traditional telephone services (POTS). Examples of category 1 VoB offerings are the plain versions of Skype and MSN messenger.
Category 2: VoB offerings which are partly any-to-any communication enabled. Within this category a gateway to the PSTN/ISDN or mobile networks
exists which gives the possibility to either call or receive calls from POTS, but not to both call and receive calls to/from such services. Examples of cate-gory 2 VoB offerings are SkypeOut and SkypeIn.
Norway (cont.)
Category 3: VoB offerings which are any-to-any communication enabled. Within this category a gateway to the PSTN/ISDN or mobile networks exists
giving the possibility to both call and receive calls from POTS. NPT has not been able to make a generally valid decision concerning category 1 ser-vices. Whether these services fall within the scope of the Ele tronic Communications Act or not must be decided in each individual case. NPT has con-cluded that category 2 services fall within the scope of the Electronic Communications Act. If available to the public, these services are deemed a public electronic communications service. Moreover, NPT has concluded that when used together two category 2 services are regulated as a category 3 ser-vice.
NPT (Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority) has concluded that category 3 services fall within the scope of the Electronic Communications Act. If available to the public, the services are deemed as a public telephone service (PATS).
Switzerland Voice telephony over the Internet is regarded as a telecommunication services and consequently subject to telecommunication legislation. It is not con-sidered as forming part of the universal service provision and is therefore not subject to the legal requirements applicable to that service and to its pro-viders. Service providers offering national and international voice telephony services on Internet would be subject to a number of legal obligations which are applicable to service providers using the PSTN such as interconnection, secrecy of communications, etc.
Turkey VoIP is not treated separately in terms of authorisation. With regard to the principle of technological neutrality, in the context of the authorisation of Long Distance Telephony Services, operators are authorised to provide service regardless of the technology used for the provision of the long distance te-lephony service where usage of VoIP technology is quite common.
Australia A review of VOIP found that the current policy and regulatory framework presents no significant barriers to the deployment of VOIP services but con-cluded there would be merit in the government providing clarity and flexibility for investors and consumers. Currently VOIP services that are essentially replacements for fixed standard telephone service are subject to the same regulatory framework as PSTN services. Other types of VoIP services may also be provided and are subject to fewer requirements. For example, the Customer Service Guarantee (CSG) is to be relaxed on many types of VoIP services. The review placed a heavy emphasis on public information activities to raise consumer awareness and understanding of VoIP.
The Australian government is monitoring the development and growth of VOIP and the appropriateness of the regulatory arrangements, and will act if the need becomes apparent.
Canada The CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) decided to regulate Internet telephone services i.e. voice communication services which use Internet Protocol, in the same manner as it regulates traditional wireline local telephone service. The CRTC concluded that these services were not materially different from traditional telephone services in that they use telephone numbers and connect to anyone on the traditional telephone network. Thus, the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) will be required to obtain CRTC approval for prices, features, terms and con-ditions for local Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services before offering them in their incumbent territories. Also, if an ILEC wants to offer VoIP as part of a bundle with another service, it must get prior CRTC approval. The CRTC will not be regulating private computer-to-computer voice services over the Internet also called peer-to-peer (P2P) as these do not connect to the public telephone network.
Japan VoIP service providers should comply with the Telecommunications Business Law as telecommunications service providers1.
There are two kinds of telecommunication numbers for VoIP services (numbers starting with "050" and numbers that are the same as those allocated for fixed telephony services) which are based on ITU-T E.164 in Japan.
Especially, VoIP services using these E.164 numbers should be consistent with conditions for numbering allocation as specified in the Regulation on Telecommunications Numbers.
New Zealand Under New Zealand law, national and international voice telephony services provided over the Internet by entities other than a PTO, are defined and treated the same as such services provided by a PTO.
United States The FCC’s consideration of issues surrounding VoIP and other IP-enabled services and applications takes place within a legal framework comprised of statutory provisions and judicial precedent, prior FCC orders, ongoing FCC proceedings, and state actions relating to IP-enabled services. The FCC has not yet determined the appropriate classification for all VoIP services in that context. The FCC has, however, clarified that certain social and public safety obligations apply to “interconnected” VoIP services – VoIP services which, inter alia, allow an end user to place calls to, and receive calls from, the public switched telephone network. In the last two years, the FCC has required interconnected VoIP providers to provide 911 emergency access, comply with the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), and contribute to the federal universal service fund, and has open pro-ceedings to address additional, related issues.
Glossary: ECS – Electronic Communication Service ILEC – Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers NRF – New regulatory framework
PATS - Publicly Available Telephone Service PSTN – Public switched telecommunication network SMP – Significant market power
VoB – Voice over Broadband VoI – Voice over Internet.
