Telecommunications providers at the VoIP World Asia conference failed to reach a consensus on the legal regulations for VoIP.
According to industry experts, establishing regulations for VoIP is necessary to some extent, as it allows new technologies to be deployed in the market and enables service providers to maximize the new features of the technology. “We are not concerned about regulations related to VoIP. As long as within the framework of those regulations, we can enhance technology to provide services at the lowest cost, we should be welcomed unconditionally,” stated Jonathan Draluck, Vice President of Business for iBasis, an international wholesale VoIP provider, at the conference.
Jonathan Draluck suggested that initially, lawmakers hoped that legal regulations for VoIP would ensure telecommunications companies with dominant market shares would no longer have monopolies in providing telecommunications services. However, removing regulations and allowing the telecommunications market to compete freely could achieve similar objectives. Tightening regulations related to VoIP could hinder competition in countries where the telecommunications market has not yet opened up.
To harmonize regulatory requirements and promote technological innovation, lawmakers need to address questions such as: Are lawmakers comfortable knowing that a free telecommunications market could upset some major players with dominant market shares? Can customers access emergency services anywhere? How do governments intervene in the content of Internet calls to prevent illegal activities? Do legal regulations negatively impact service quality?
Currently, VoIP regulations vary significantly across Asian countries. The National Telecommunications Commission of the Philippines (NTC) has abolished regulations applicable to VoIP, recognizing it as a “value-added service,” which means Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can offer VoIP services without needing a license. Before this change, VoIP in the Philippines was considered a basic telephony service and could only be provided by state telecommunications companies.
Meanwhile, in China, the government has blocked PC-to-Phone calls but has allowed PC-to-PC calls to operate freely.
In Hong Kong, the Office of the Communications Authority (OFTA) also established regulations for VoIP as soon as the territory was handed back to China. However, what the largest telecommunications group in Hong Kong, PCCW, is concerned about, according to John Bradfield, Director of Competition and Legal Affairs, is not the regulations themselves but the inconsistency in those regulations. In Hong Kong, fixed-line telephone services are bound by regulations to ensure quality and security, while VoIP is not subject to such regulations.
While lawmakers are considering how to regulate VoIP services, Jonathan Draluck believes that the lack of regulations regarding VoIP in the U.S. and Europe has actually driven technological development in these regions. “Restrictions” is a term that no one wants to hear when discussing VoIP, as it hinders competition.
Generally, telecommunications companies that want their governments to impose regulations on VoIP are the ones holding the “keys to the industry” with a long history and existing network infrastructure. These companies do not want to invest in developing new technologies and services until they see competitors go through all the licensing processes to provide services—but that is not the way to stimulate technological innovation. iBasis asserts that although the legal environment for VoIP remains uncertain, the company is still willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in researching new technologies.
One thing is certain: the debate over whether or not to regulate Internet-based services in general and VoIP in particular will be a key topic in upcoming conferences.
