March 2004Richard Stastny1 IP Communications in Europe Implications of Regulation Richard Stastny, ÖFEG* * The opinions expressed here may or may not be that of my company

March 2004Richard Stastny2 Two Global Networks heavily regulated optimized for speech end of lifetime accounting: cascading vertically integrated global connectivity (still) unregulated multipurpose regarding IP Comm. begin of lifetime accounting: peering horizontally layered global connectivity Global Phone Network Global Internet

March 2004Richard Stastny3 Vertical Structure Access Transport Services TELCOTELCO TELCOTELCO TELCOTELCO TELCOTELCO NGN Regulatory boundaries

March 2004Richard Stastny4 Horizontally Layered Access Transport Services Internet PSTN ISDN GSM UMTS ADSLW-LAN SIPMAILIMWEB... Regulatory boundaries?

March 2004Richard Stastny5 Implications Markets and competition will be global –service providers can act globally –users can subscribe globally –users can access the services globally –users can even do it themselves –via the global commons (the transport) Regulation still national (state, fed) –regulation is still vertically oriented New policy framework needed –but on a global scale

March 2004Richard Stastny6 Main Purpose of Regulation Europe: Aims of the “New” Regulatory Framework and the derived national Telecommunication Laws: –fostering of competition in the telecommunication arena –to ensure the adequate supply of the population and the economy –with reasonably priced, high quality and innovative communication services reached by different measures of regulation –but these measures should be to a large extent technology neutral –and innovative technologies and services as well as new emerging markets should only be regulated (ex-post) to avoid distortion of competition and to reach the above aims. and NOT by protecting service providers or technologies –especially NOT specific service providers or specific technologies

March 2004Richard Stastny7 Electronic communications service (ECS) A service normally provided for remuneration which consists wholly or mainly in the conveyance of signals on electronic communications networks, including telecommunications services and transmission services in networks used for broadcasting, but exclude services providing, or exercising editorial control over, content transmitted using electronic communications networks and services; …

March 2004Richard Stastny8 Publicly available telephone service (PATS) A service available to the public for originating and receiving national and international calls and access to emergency services through a number or numbers in a national or international telephone numbering plan, and in addition may, where relevant, include one or more of the following services: the provision of operator assistance, directory enquiry services, directories, provision of public pay phones, provision of service under special terms, provision of special facilities for customers with disabilities or with special social needs and/or the provision of non-geographic services The definition is flawed, some say –if you do not provide access to emergency services, you are not PATS –if you provide access, you are PATS

March 2004Richard Stastny9 Service categories in NRF Source: Analysys – IP Voice and associated convergent services

March 2004Richard Stastny10 Business models Self provided consumer (DIY - Skype) Corporate internal use on LAN/WAN (IP PBX) Independent of Internet Access (Vonage) Provided by Broadband Access Provider (YAHOO! BB) Carrier internal use (NGN) Source: Analysys – IP Voice and associated convergent services

March 2004Richard Stastny11 Service categories in NRF Corporate internal use DIY Carrier internal use Yahoo!BB Vonage Source: Analysys – IP Voice and associated convergent services

March 2004Richard Stastny12 European Regulatory Issues Definition of PATS and related issues –Access to emergency services –VoIP provided at a “fixed location” –Possible pressure on national numbering plans –Interconnect to the PSTN –Termination charges vs. VoIP peering –Network integrity –Effects on USO funding Impact on relevant markets defined by the commission Extraterritorial service providers Treatment of free and self-provided services Designation of associated facilities Clarifying control of access to end users Impact on lawful intercept Interconnect to other VoIP service providers‘ networks Possible barriers by access operators Security and reliability Changes to regulatory costing Source: Analysys – IP Voice and associated convergent services

March 2004Richard Stastny13 My two cents worth The drifting apart of the two platforms should be prevented The PATS definition in the Universal Service Directive should be challenged Non-PATS Service should be encouraged to provide access to emergency calls by any means (NENA/VON Coalition approach) Number portability obligatory for PATS and non-PATS (Fixed / mobile) Non-PATS services should not be considered as „at a fixed location“ There will be no pressure on numbering plans if enough new number ranges are offered Only voice peering should be used for IP-IP calls Lawful intercept is only feasible at the access to end users Safe guarding network integrity and interoperability Least intrusive regulation

March 2004Richard Stastny14 Going a step further after Monday Source: Analysys – IP Voice and associated convergent services ?

March 2004Richard Stastny15 Sound Public Policy, Not Regulation Broadband Applications Make the Existing Regulatory ‘Stove Pipes’ Completely Obsolete –Attempting to overlay stovepipes in converged environment will cause real harm –Increasing Broadband Availability and Capability is the #1 Policy Priority Competition at Every Layer Eliminates Need for Most Regulation Which Had Been Implemented To Constrain the old vertical monopolies The success of the internet has been enabled by the ‘end-to- end’ principle. –The Adoption of Simple Connectivity Principles, With Government Oversight, Provide a Safety Net In Case Abuses Occur in ANY layer Source: Regulatory Update, Kathryn C. Brown -Verizon

March 2004Richard Stastny16 Broadband Policy Proposal High Tech Broadband Coalition Title I (similar to ECS) is the appropriate regulatory classification for all broadband services to encourage maximum investment and innovation However, all participants in the broadband value chain should embrace a set of connectivity principles which ensure that consumers… Can gain access to any content on the internet Can run the applications they choose Have adequate information regarding their service capabilities Can attach any devices to their broadband connection that do not harm the network FCC (the regulators) will retain authority under Title I (ECS). If needed, they can step in and take action these principles are being violated and the public interest is harmed Source: Regulatory Update, Kathryn C. Brown -Verizon

March 2004Richard Stastny17 Further Reading The New Regulatory Framework – NRF The Analysys Report Analysis Presentation at the EC Workshop Comments to the Analysys Report by OeFEG The UK OFCOM view

March 2004Richard Stastny18 Links t/todays_framework/index_en.htmhttp://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/ecomm/all_abou t/todays_framework/index_en.htm ul_information/library/studies_ext_consult/ip_voice/401_28_ip_ voice_and_associated_convergent_services.pdfhttp://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/ecomm/doc/usef ul_information/library/studies_ext_consult/ip_voice/401_28_ip_ voice_and_associated_convergent_services.pdf ul_information/library/studies_ext_consult/ip_voice/analysys_pr esentation_on_voip.ppthttp://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/ecomm/doc/usef ul_information/library/studies_ext_consult/ip_voice/analysys_pr esentation_on_voip.ppt et/2003/voip1103.pdfhttp:// et/2003/voip1103.pdf