Microsoft Word - FoV-VoIP-BIGGS-Draft.doc

INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION UNION

The Future of Voice

Document: FoV/04

12 January 2007

New Initiatives Programme

THE STATUS OF VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL

(VOIP) WORLDWIDE, 2006

15-16 January 2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was prepared by Phillippa Biggs of the Strategy and Policy Unit of the International Telecommunication

Union (ITU) <Phillippa.b[email protected]>. The ITU will host a workshop on “The Future of Voice” to be held in

Geneva from 15-16 January 2007, at which Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) will be one of the subjects under

discussion. The author wishes to thank Cristina Bueti, Dr. Tim Kelly, Youlia Lozanova, Jaroslaw Ponder, Susan

Schorr and Christine Sund for their invaluable assistance, as well as John Bosnell from Point Topic and Russell

Southwood from Balancing Act Africa. The opinions expressed in this document as those of the author and do not

necessarily reflect the views of the International Telecommunication Union or its membership.

This paper, alongside other background material relevant to the debate on the future of voice and prepared under

ITU New Initiatives Programme, can be found at http://www.itu.int/spu/voice. The Future of Voice project is

managed by Jaroslaw Ponder <jaroslaw.ponder@itu.int>, under the direction of Dr. Tim Kelly <tim.kell[email protected]>.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

Definitions....................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Summary overview of how VoIP technology works................................................. 4

2 Drivers and Obstacles to VoIP deployment .................................................................................... 6

2.1 The main factors driving VoIP take-up and deployment include:............................. 6

2.2 Drawbacks and obstacles to further growth in the market include:........................... 7

3 Market Prospects............................................................................................................................. 8

3.1 VoIP Subscribers ....................................................................................................... 9

3.2 VoIP Traffic............................................................................................................. 10

3.3 VoIP Revenues ........................................................................................................ 11

4 Regulatory issues .......................................................................................................................... 13

5 Regional trends in regulatory approach to VoIP........................................................................... 17

5.1 North America ......................................................................................................... 17

5.2 Europe...................................................................................................................... 17

5.3 Africa....................................................................................................................... 18

5.4 Asia-Pacific ............................................................................................................. 18

6 Appendix Table 1: Main Regulatory Definitions of VoIP in Use................................................. 19

7 Appendix Table 2: Regulatory Status of VoIP By Region ........................................................... 22

7.1 Latin America & the Caribbean............................................................................... 22

7.2 Asia-Pacific region .................................................................................................. 24

7.3 Europe...................................................................................................................... 32

7.4 Africa....................................................................................................................... 37

TABLES

Table 1.1: Main Categories of Definitions* .............................................................................................. 1

Table 1.2: PSTN versus IP-enabled networks for the broader concept of NGN....................................... 3

Table 4.1: Regulatory Questions in relation to VoIP, mid-2006............................................................. 15

FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Topology of the ITU-T Recommendation H.323 and SIP protocols ...................................... 5

Figure 1.2: Different protocols involved in VoIP...................................................................................... 5

Figure 3.1: VoIP Subscribers worldwide .................................................................................................. 9

Figure 3.2: VoIP Subscribers by Provider for the US .............................................................................10

Figure 3.3: VoIP Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 11

Figure 3.4: Projected Growth in VoIP Subscribers and Revenues, 2003-2010....................................... 12

Figure 3.5: Projected Growth in Revenues on IMS Platform, 2007-2010 .............................................. 12

1 DEFINITIONS

Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) is referred to as and broadly includes Voice over Broadband (VoB),

Voice over Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), Voice over Internet (VoI), Voice over Wireless Local Area

Network and Internet telephony. In its 2001 Report on IP Telephony, the International Telecommunication

Union (ITU) distinguished the term “IP telephony” as referring to voice over IP-based networks

irrespective of ownership, in contrast to VoIP service, that refers more usually to the provision of voice

services over networks competing with incumbent operators

. These technologies all describe the transfer

of voice (and associated services) in digital form in discrete data packets using Internet Protocol (IP) over

some or the entire communication route (in contrast to the traditional circuit-switched protocols of the

Public Switched Telephone Network or PSTN). These technologies all involve the digitalization,

conversion and compression of recorded voice signals into data packets that are transmitted over an IP

network (Internet or private network), to be reassembled and converted back at the other end of the

network into voice communication.

In practice, there are a variety of different definitions in use (Table 1.1 summarises the key categories of

definitions used from Appendix Table 1) and a key part of policy-makers’ and regulators’ work is to

establish a relevant definition of VoIP as it applies to their specific market (Appendix Table 1).

Regulatory definitions of VoIP and VoIP providers have important implications, not only for regulation,

but also for the development of the wider market, innovation and competition (as well as for

measurement).

Table 1.1: Main Categories of Definitions*

Definition Examples (among others)

Quality of service (superceded) Japan, India

Equipment and terminals used, and/or India, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Spain.

Network architecture, and hence Israel, Saudi Arabia.

Functionality Hong Kong

Numbering system Japan, Taiwan (China).

Whole or part-provision of service over

IP/PSTN

Israel, Jordan, ITU.

By service Some countries distinguish between VoIP services in whether:

• VoIP is viewed as a data or information service, as opposed to a voice or

telecommunication service (e.g. Egypt, Jordan, the United States,

Barbados);

• VoIP as nomadic and non-nomadic services (Italy); and

• Publicly Available Telephone Services (PATS) and Publicly Accessible

Electronic Communications Service (PAECS) (EU).

Users/usage Some countries make further distinctions according to users:

• Public or closed group of end-users (e.g. Chile); and

• Corporate or residential use (e.g. Australia, Tunisia).

Note: * According to different regulators. These definitions are not mutually exclusive and different countries may use one or

more of them e.g. Israel bases its definition of VoIP on both network architecture, as well as whole and part-provision of service

over IP/PSTN.

Source: ITU research, Appendix Table 1.

Early definitions of VoIP (and the regulatory status of VoIP technologies) were often based on

technological distinctions in quality of service (QoS), latency and delay. Examples include Hungary

Japan

and India

. However, definitions based on QoS have become less relevant, as innovation has

ensured that the QoS of VoIP increasingly matches PSTN quality. Recent technological developments

have reduced delays to levels consistent with services offered by circuit-switched voice operators, making

distinctions between real-time and non-real-time voice service less significant

. India’s regulations relating

to the quality of VoIP services were amended in January 2004 to abolish the below-toll quality distinction

and to apply only to toll-quality QoS

, as all VoIP service providers provided toll-quality services by the

end of 2003. Some countries still stipulate minimum criteria for QoS (e.g. Japan, Spain). The modern

parallel to QoS is functionality, with Hong Kong distinguishing between Class 1 and Class 2 licenses on

the basis of whether they offer the same functionality as PSTN

(including emergency call services,

number portability, etc.). This offers flexibility with the option of more limited regulatory requirements.

The differences in service offerings and capabilities between the Public Switched Telephone Network

(PSTN) and VoIP arise from network architecture and the use of circuit-switched gateways or IP packets

for the carriage of voice services. Some of the key differences between PSTN and IP-based networks and

carriage of data and voice are summarised in Table 1.2. Nowadays, QoS of VoIP may or may not match

the QoS offered by PSTN (this is usually determined by the regulator). The QoS offered by operators and

VoIP service providers also takes into account cost and security considerations. For many operators, VoIP

is the first incarnation of a Next Generation Network (NGN). However, NGN is a much broader concept,

guaranteeing a certain minimum QoS and generalized mobility, that are not offered by VoIP.

Appendix Table 1 lists the principal distinctions in use by different countries. The definition used often

depends on purpose, and is often determined with an eye to the regulatory consequences. The OECD has

a broad definition of VoIP, but uses a narrow definition for policy purposes in order to focus on those

VoIP services that function most like PSTN

. Some regulators have reached their definitions of VoIP

services, with an eye to the regulatory requirements that become necessary depending on the definition.

For example, location and emergency call services may be difficult for new entrants to meet, so within the

United Kingdom, classification of VoIP as a PATS has been phased in, with a “policy of interim

forbearance policy” by the UK regulator OFCOM to give new entrants time to meet the obligations

required of PATS providers (which include location and emergency call services). In many countries,

VoIP service providers are required to inform customers of the capabilities and limitations of their service

(e.g. in Hong Kong, Ireland, UK).

See ITU Internet case study of Hungary at http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/hungary/hungary.html. In Hungary,

other providers were licensed to provide VoIP, provided it did not match Matav’s QoS, by way of competition.

In Japan, a Study Group distinguished in February 2002 between three classes of VoIP (Classes A, B and C) based

on R-index and end-delay. Compliance in meeting minimum QoS criteria (end-to-end voice quality and end-to-end

voice delay) are important for qualifying for the VoIP 050-prefix numbers assigned by the regulator since September

2002. Where quality is as good as PSTN, providers have been allowed to use the same numbers as PSTN since 2003.

The Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) distinguished between toll quality and below-toll

quality VoIP services in its “Regulation on Quality of Service for VoIP-based International Long Distance Service”

on 15 November 2002, at: http://www.trai.gov.in/trai/upload/Regulations/29/Regulation%20on%20ILD-QOS.pdf

Page 5, Final VoIP Statement, available from the Jordanian TRC at:

http://www.trc.gov.jo/Static_English/New%20Stuff/Final%20VoIP%20Statement%20Final.doc

“TRAI Amends Regulation on QoS for VoIP ILD Service in the Interests of Consumers of Remote Areas”, 27

January 2004 at: http://www.trai.gov.in/trai/upload/PressReleases/200/Press%20Release%2027%20Jan%2004.pdf.

“Know More About IP Telephony Service”, OFTA at: http://www.ofta.gov.hk/en/publications/leaflets.html.

The narrow definition of VoIP is a “voice application over IP-based network that enables a VoIP subscriber to call

and to be called by a party subscribed to a traditional PSTN service” and therefore excludes Peer-to-Peer VoIP.

Table 1.2: PSTN versus IP-enabled networks for the broader concept of NGN

Note: * These acronyms apply to networks, communications and applications.

Source: ITU

Factor PSTN (‘Legacy telco’) model IP-based networks

Network/service relation Different networks providing multiple

services.

Unified integrated network providing

multiple services.

Mobility of services Limited mobility of end-user services Broad-based generalized mobility

Interconnection

Circuit-switched interconnection

(transit/termination);

Packet-based, based on IP. Traditional

switches are split into a media gateway

to ensure transport and the softswitch

for call control. This means that a

peering and transit model may be more

appropriate.

Structure Vertically integrated. Horizontally integrated (services and

intelligence are separated from the

underlying transport technologies).

Control Network-centric: intelligence in PSTN

has centralized control.

‘Edge-centric’ approach: Services in

the intelligent nodes at network edges.

Cost determination Cost determination from LRIC,

determined by “efficient” network;

Interconnection(transit/ termination);

Calling Party’s Network Pays.

Cost-determination based on peering.

Bill & Keep (including Receiving

Party paying for termination through

the internet access charge) has been

identified as a good model by some

Key differentiation Capacity-based.

Quality-guaranteed (call quality

constant – congestion leads to calls

being unavailable.

QoS class (best effort, priority,

guaranteed).

No differentiated quality connections –

congestion leads to packet delay and

loss. There is also the possibility to

block, degrade QoS, including through

routing, interconnection and signalling

abilities.

Services Services – voice, with some data in

low bandwidth offerings.

All existing services (including voice

and data) with the possibility to offer

bundled packages in triple and

quadruple play in higher bandwidth

offerings.

Sources of market power

• Access network and last mile.

• Established customer base

• Brand name and reputation.

• Large sunk investments.

• Leveraging (of market power, in

content and of access networks)

• Control Points and bottlenecks

• Interconnection agreements

• Content provision (the driving

rationale for service & content

provider alliances).

Threats to incumbents’

market Power

• Asymmetric regulation

• Technological change

• Regulatory uncertainty

• Uncertain future investments

Scott Marcus’ background paper, Interconnection in an IP-enabled NGN environment

, presented to the ITU

workshop, “What Rules for IP-enabled NGNs

?”. See also the German Wissenschaftliches Institut für Infrastruktur

und Kommunikationsdienste (WIK)’s Bill and Keep Workshop, 4-5 April 2006, at www.wik.org.

1.1 Summary overview of how VoIP technology works

VoIP as a technology is based on different signaling and communication protocols. It works by sampling

the sound ‘’ by a computer at very high rates (at least 8,000 times per second or more) and recording or

storing these samples. The computer then compresses the sound, so they require less space, using a

compressor/de-compressor algorithm (CODEC). These significantly reduce the bandwidth used, relative

to an uncompressed audio stream. Once recorded and compressed, the sounds are collected into larger data

packets (‘packetisation’) and sent over the IP network. Generally, an IP packet will contain 10 or more

milliseconds of audio (20-30 milliseconds is the most common).

Packet loss during transmission is compensated for by filling in the gaps, a process called Packet-Loss

Concealment (PLC). Other methods to ensure completeness of packets include sending duplicate packets

multiple times (redundancy) and including some overlap of data within packets to allow reconstruction of

lost packets (Forward-Error Correction). Packets can also be delayed through jitter (which is a particular

problem for voice). Jitter can result in choppy voice or temporary glitches, so VoIP devices must

implement jitter buffer algorithms to compensate for jitter. PLC algorithms can also smooth the audio and

compensate for late arrival of packets (which are then discarded). Video works in a very similar way –

video information is broken into small pieces, compressed using a CODEC, placed into small packets and

transmitted over the IP network. This means that other media including video can be added onto VoIP in a

relatively simple manner.

In order for computers to communicate in this way, there must be agreed protocols for how computers

find each other and how information is exchanged in order to allow the flow of packets between the

communicating devices. Some of the main protocols for the different functions are:

1. Call-signalling protocols – to find the remote device and negotiate the means by which media can flow

between the two devices to establish multi-media communication. The two most popular protocols are

ITU-T Recommendation H.323

and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).

1.1 ITU-T Recommendation H.323

is an ITU-T Recommendation that builds on earlier protocols for the

transmission of voice and video over PSTN, ISDN and ATM. It borrows heavily from legacy

communication systems and is a binary protocol, which means that it has better interoperability with

PSTN and offers better support for video and reliable out-of-band transport of DTMF. It is the most

widely adopted protocol for the transmission of VoIP, partly because it was first published as a standard

early on in 1996. It does not, however, encompass all aspects of VoIP communications and each vendor

can have their own variations of the overall network architecture and speech compression algorithms.

1.2 Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)

is the other main end-to-end signaling protocol. It facilitates

communication between 2+ SIP-supported devices, but further protocols may be needed to make VoIP

calls, including SIP extensions to carry the necessary information and provide the necessary functionality.

It was not designed to address the problems raised by legacy communication systems, but can prove easier

to implement and troubleshoot, according to some. SIP is most popular for instant messaging systems.

2. Device control protocols – governing the interface between the Media Gateway Controller (MGC)

containing the call control logic and Media Gateway (MG) interfacing with the PSTN in the split gateway.

These protocols include ITU-T Recommendation H.248

and Media Gateway Controller Protocol (MGCP).

Beyond these protocols, there are also other, non-standard protocols such as Skype that have proved

popular in the market.

Figure 1.1: Topology of the ITU-T Recommendation H.323 and SIP protocols

Figure 1.2: Different protocols involved in VoIP

2 DRIVERS AND OBSTACLES TO VOIP DEPLOYMENT

VoIP services are currently offered by local telephone operators, long-distance operators, cable TV

companies, Internet service providers, non-facilities-based independent providers and, in some countries,

mobile operators. ITU (2001) distinguishes between incumbents and competing networks, as well as

independent providers (e.g., Vonage). Regulatory approaches may need to distinguish between different

classes of providers in order to address market dominance and competition issues (see Section 5). VoIP is

also showing strong growth by all metrics (see Section 3). In some markets, however, growth in VoIP

does not seem to be achieving its full potential, and some of the obstacles to growth (section 2.2) are

limiting market gains.

2.1 The main factors driving VoIP take-up and deployment include:

For businesses:

• Security at a lower cost: for institutional and business users, the prospect of a private network can

offer greater security and reliability, with no discernible loss in quality of service. Cost

efficiencies may or may not be a consideration in this case.

For consumers:

• Significantly lower costs may arise for consumers (who, in some cases, are prepared to sacrifice

some quality of service or functionality for a reduction in price). The explosive growth of

companies such as Skype and Vonage demonstrates that a key driver of the growth of VoIP is

consumer demand, with consumers wishing to spend less to stay in touch. Consumers may also

find bundling and flat-rate pricing packages attractive in an increasingly complex multimedia

environment. The possibility of a single and/or fixed bill per month for telecommunications may

be enticing to some consumers, in particular for ADSL.

For service providers

• Lower investment, capital and operating costs for operators through:

- Economies of scale;

- Reductions in the bandwidth required to send any given voice message; and

- The possibility of converged services running over one network (as opposed to multiple, older

legacy networks).

Cost savings depend partly on the structure of the telco’s traffic, with greater savings possible for

long-distance and international traffic, as these omit the access charges imposed by local telcos on

long-distance carriers for origination/termination of the local part of the call. For many operators,

VoIP networks are perceived as a first stepping-stone towards Next-Generation Networks (NGN).

• Locking into growth - Instead of being perceived as a threat, growing VoIP revenues could

compensate for flagging traditional voice revenues and lock into growth in the broadband market.

This is certainly the strategy being pursued by BT, for example, in what it refers to as its ‘New

Wave’ service (including broadband and broadband voice, as well as its VoIP product, BT

Communicator).

• Entry into new markets, conferring market power and leverage: VoIP can be used by operators

to offer telephony (voice), broadband Internet access (data) and a host of other broadband audio-

visual services (video). Services such as VoIP and TV/video can be bundled with broadband

access and are important in reducing churn and increasing service differentiation in competitive

markets. Whilst these could be used by dominant operators to leverage their market dominance in

certain segments to gain a foothold into new markets

, bundled VoIP offerings can also provide

new points of entry into new market segments and enable content providers to move into service

provision

. VoIP can also lower barriers of entry to new geographical markets for multi-national

companies with international operations that are moving to adopt IP telephony and internal VPNs.

VoIP can serve as an entry point into enhanced multimedia services.

• Enhanced innovation, converged services, new revenue opportunities and greater choice

(including N-play package offers). The mechanics of IP-based transmission mean that it is

relatively simple to add in other media on IP-based communications. Other and new services can

also be offered over a converged IP network. This also includes the possibility to offer

videoconferencing, fax, audio/video and a number of other new VoIP-related applications.

Furthermore, some of these applications can be added in by upgrades or interfaces with existing

PSTN equipment – not all these services require the loss or removal of older equipment.

• New business models for operators: VoIP offers the possibility to move towards new business

models, including the bypass of the traditional accounting rate settlement system as a settlement

mechanism, as well as flat-rate pricing in billing. Flat-rate pricing is growing rapidly in

popularity, due to its clarity and simplicity in billing operations.

2.2 Drawbacks and obstacles to further growth in the market include:

• Problems with QoS and reliability, including continuance of service during power cuts and

security. For multimedia services provided over broadband networks, voice, video and high-speed

data have different requirements, so bundled products place different burdens on telecom

networks. Voice is particularly affected by jitter (the variation in time between packets arriving

over the network), while video and data are most sensitive to packet loss or reordering. The

provision of bundled services over one network means that the network has to cope with a range

of different QoS requirements. The ability of the network to continue to function despite power

shortages is cited as a particular problem in developing countries, given the frequent power

shortages. In terms of security, only limited calling party information may be available.

• Best effort - VoIP services provided by operators without their own broadband network are

provided on a best effort basis only. This means that traffic may be downgraded and may not be

as highly prioritized as other operators’ traffic, whether by intention or accident. In some

instances, incumbents have sought to inspect, block or degrade VoIP traffic carried over their

networks through ‘deep packet inspection’ and packet sniffers.

• Resistance by incumbents and established operators, which see VoIP as a threat to their

established PSTN revenues, mainly in countries where the telecommunications market is

monopoly-based or less mature. Operators in several developed countries and a few developing

countries have chosen to engage with VoIP, however, in the hope of being better prepared for the

future direction of the market. These operators are seeking to position VoIP as a complement to

their existing services, rather than substitute.

• Regulatory uncertainty. Operators argue that, in order to justify the investments required in VoIP,

they must be guaranteed a clear regulatory framework that will reduce the risk inherent in

regulatory uncertainty and help clarify (guarantee) returns on their investment in advance. Some

commentators note that, if internet telephony is to be a success in the European mass market,

policy-makers and regulators have to address the task of promoting broadband technologies,

“On the Question of Bundling Again”, column by Mr. Au, Director General of the Hong Kong OFTA, 1 May 2005,

at http://www.ofta.gov.hk/en/dg_article/au_articles/article.html.

In Hong Kong, operators are especially concerned about whether services-based operators who do not invest in

network facilities should be admitted into the IP service market, Article by Mr. Au, “The Regulation of IP Telephony

(2)”, 15 May 2005, available from: http://www.ofta.gov.hk/en/dg_article/au_articles/article.html

without simultaneously reinforcing the structures of the former incumbents

. In some countries,

incumbents are also interested to limit the regulatory freedom that new entrants to the VoIP

market enjoy.

• Increased and/or specific regulation. Some countries (e.g. United Kingdom, United States) are

developing regulations relating to VoIP (e.g. emergency call obligations, etc. – see Table 3) that

may make it harder for new entrants to offer VoIP services. In recognition of this, some countries

have used staged transition periods (UK), while others distinguish between classes of VoIP

service according to functionality (e.g. Hong Kong distinguishes between Class 1 and Class 2

VoIP service based on whether full PSTN functionality in, for example, number portability, is

offered by the service provider).

3 MARKET PROSPECTS

Estimates of the total VoIP market size vary significantly, in part due to the problems in definition,

definitions by sector (business/residential) and by the different technologies in use (Appendix Table 1).

Quantifying the number of VoIP subscribers or minutes of traffic is difficult, and to some extent

meaningless, since the migration to VoIP is taking place within the context of a broader migration to IP

In the more industrialized economies that are moving to install IP networks, the number of subscribers or

proportion of traffic carried over the IP-based network depend upon the rate of migration and completion

of the incumbents’ IP network. This will depend on the state of their legacy network, inter-connection and

structure of their traffic (and revenues). What is clear, however, is that however it is measured, the VoIP

market is growing in terms of subscribers, revenues and traffic, and will restructure voice revenues

worldwide.

The growth of VoIP is all the more remarkable given that, initially, VoIP technologies are often resisted

by incumbents, Ministries and governments in many countries where the incumbent is state-owned,

including many developing countries. For example, in Panama, prior to the end of the monopoly in 2003,

the Public Services Regulator mandated all ISPs to block IP ports identified with VoIP services (domestic

VoIP has now been allowed). For many incumbents, the initial stages of introduction of VoIP technologies

offers the prospect of larger margins (often the incumbent maintains the high price of telecom services,

whilst reaping the benefits and greater profit margins offered by lower costs, as has been the case for some

African incumbents, at least while the grey market remains relatively immature

More recently, however, operators and regulators in industrialized countries have sought to engage with

and develop VoIP, rather than exclude it, in recognition of its substantial and growing market size

(however it is defined). The UK regulator, OFCOM, anticipates that all voice traffic will shift over to IP

technology

, while the Irish regulator, ComReg, anticipates a similar market outcome

“Internet telephony: media darling still a far cry from the mass market”, 9 August 2005, Deutsche Bank Research,

at: http://www.dbresearch.de/servlet/reweb2.ReWEB?rwkey=u1575058

For example, BT is installing its IP-based 21 Century Network to drive growth in ‘New Wave’ revenues to

compensate for declines in traditional fixed voice revenues and mitigate high maintenance costs associated with its

legacy network (BT Annual Report 2006).

“An Overview of VoIP Regulation in Africa: Policy Responses and Proposals”, Balancing Act Africa, June 2004,

Tracy Cohen & Russell Southwood, available from http://www.balancingact-africa.com/

“Regulation of VoIP Services”, http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/voipregulation/voipregulation.pdf).

“Review of the VoIP Framework in Ireland”, http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0613.pdf.

3.1 VoIP Subscribers

Estimates of the number of VoIP subscribers vary significantly, due to the definitions used and whether

they describe home or residential VoIP versus total (including the significant number of business

subscribers). For example, Silicon.com reports that by May 2004, there were fewer than 200,000 VoB

users

(rather than subscribers), whilst Merrill Lynch estimated that there were around 4 million VoIP

subscribers in the US alone at the end of 2003

. By end of March 2005, an estimated 11.5 million people

worldwide were using retail VoIP services for some part of their telephone calls

. Adding in PC-based

‘soft-client’ VoIP services (such as Skype) and adjusting for the number of minutes, this estimate grows to

some 17.5 million people using VoIP services by March 2005

. Excluding PC-to-PC VoIP which is most

difficult to ascertain, the number of subscribers to VoIP services has been estimated for the end of 2005 at

around 25 million worldwide20. The number of worldwide VoIP subscribers is expected to surpass 47

million subscribers at the end of 2006, double the number of subscribers at the end of 2005

. This is

estimated to grow to approximately 250 million by the end of 2011 (Figure 3.1, left chart).

Figure 3.1: VoIP Subscribers worldwide

Estimates of VoIP subscribers, total and as a proportion of mainlines worldwide, 2005-2011 (left chart); and the

distribution of VoIP subscribers worldwide, March 2005 (right chart).

VoIP Subscribers

100

150

200

250

300

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Millions

VoIP subscribers (m)

VoIP % total mainline subscribers

Distribution of VoIP subscribers

Japan

North

America

France

Germany

Norway

Neth.

Sweden

Italy

Korea

Source: iDATE (left chart), Point Topic (right chart).

Japan remains the largest market worldwide, with an estimated 60 per cent of total VoIP subscribers in

March 2005 according to Point Topic (Figure 3.1, right chart), due to its early regulatory framework and

liberalization of VoIP services. Strong growth has been registered in France, where the regulator ARCEP

www.silicon.com/comment/0,39024711,1000604600.htm.

Merrill Lynch, Everything Over IP, p.20, 12 March 2004.

Point Topic, www.point-topic.com/content/dslanalysis/voipana050706.htm (6 July 2005). The study estimates the

following residential VoIP users as of March 2005: North America (1.8 million); Japan (7.2 million); France (1.3

million); Europe (2.3 million), PC-based VoIP users (5.9 million).

Point Topic, www.point-topic.com/content/dslanalysis/voipana050706.htm (6 July 2005). The study estimates the

following residential VoIP users as of March 2005: North America (1.8 million); Japan (7.2 million); France (1.3

million); Europe (2.3 million), PC-based VoIP users (5.9 million).

iDATE, available from (in French).

Infonetics Research, August 2006, available at

http://www.infonetics.com/resources/purple.shtml?ms06.ngv.pbx.2q06.nr.shtml

and quoted at:

http://www.internetnews.com/stats/article.php/3624291.

reported that the number of VoIP subscribers amounted to 1.5 million at March 2005, which accounted for

1.5 billion minutes or 6% of total traffic over the first quarter of 2005

. BT reports that its Broadband

Voice subscriber base amounted to 22’000 at the end of 2005. However, this is in stark contrast to

estimates by the UK regulator, OFCOM, which estimates that by March 2006, there were more than 1.8

million active residential VoIP households in the UK. Of these, OFCOM estimates that around 300,000

were using BT’s VoIP products (Broadband Voice and Communicator); roughly 150,000 were using

Wanadoo/Orange’s service and the remainder (1.35 million or 75%) was using other VoIP services, such

as Skype and Vonage.

The estimation of these PC-based ‘soft-client’ VoIP services is particularly problematic. Skype had a

registered 31 million accounts by 2004, but there were no indications of the number of active users. Until

fairly recently, Point Topic adopted a method of estimation of the number of users based on the total

minutes of traffic, but this depended on assumptions about the average usage pattern. Recently, Point

Topic has changed its estimation method to one based on revenues. The significant finding, however, is

that by all estimates, PC-to-PC VoIP and Skype and Vonage have cornered significant market share in

most markets, from 75 per cent of households in the UK to the bulk of US subscriber growth (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2: VoIP Subscribers by Provider for the US

Source : Telegeography, available from: http://www.telegeography.com/products/us_voip/index.php.

3.2 VoIP Traffic

Estimates of VoIP traffic are difficult, since voice traffic sent over the Internet looks no different to most

types of data. Considering the definition of VoIP as the transfer of voice traffic over IP networks, a

number of estimates have been made of the total proportion of voice traffic carried over IP networks

globally (Figure 3.3, left chart), while some operators have published information on their traffic (Figure

3.3, right chart).

http://www.silicon.fr/articles/11521/VoIP-15-million-d-utilisateurs-en-France.html.

Figure 3.3: VoIP Traffic

Estimates of VoIP traffic worldwide, and by individual operators.

Estimates of international VoIP traffic

1996 1999 2002 2005 2008

% of total int'al minutes

Yankee

Gp.

Telegeography

/PriMetrica

Tarifica

Delta

Three WP

Delta Three

White Paper

nalysys

Yankee Gp.

ITU

Share of Operators' Traffic

100

1995 2000 2005 2010

Percentage (%)

Reported

Predicted

MCI (US)

Germany (DB)

France Telecom

French regulator ARCEP

Sotelma,

Senegal

Telecom

Italia

T&T (US)

Source: ITU.

Note: In the left chart, Telegeography/PriMetica estimates (shown by the pink line) are considerably lower, as they draw mainly

on traffic estimates from US operators. The ITU estimate refers to IP telephony. The right chart presents different estimates of

VoIP traffic as a proportion of total traffic from diverse sources, which are not measured using a single, consistent methodology.

In terms of individual markets, upon completion of the first phase of its 21 CN, BT reports 23 million

customer calls every year carried over its IP-based network, Twenty-First Century 21CN, in the

experimental phase, equivalent to 625,000 live customer calls a day.

3.3 VoIP Revenues

In terms of revenues, Point Topic estimates that revenues from “IP Telephony services” (defined as full-

service telephone services using the Internet for part or all of the call) grew from US$ 833 million in 2004

to US$ 1’834 million in 2005, a growth of 89 per cent during 2005 reflecting the growth of VoIP in Japan,

France and North America (mainly through cable operators). Telegeography predicts that revenues from

VoIP will reach US$ 5 billion by 2010 (Figure 3.4). Other estimates are much higher - revenues from

VoIP services in the business sector alone will reach US$ 18 billion by 2010, with hosted VoIP business

revenues reaching US$ 7.6 billion by 2010, according to Juniper Research

. In North America alone,

VoIP service revenue was estimated at around US$ 2.6 billion in 2005

‘Global VoIP – Hosted & Non-Hosted Services: Business & Enterprise Markets, 2006-2010’, 20 March 2006,

www.juniperresearch.com

, quoted at http://www.totaltele.com/View.aspx?ID=3168&t=1.

Infonetics Research, August 2006, available at: http://www.voip-news.com/news/voip-revenue-report-072706/.

Figure 3.4: Projected Growth in VoIP Subscribers and Revenues, 2003-2010

Source: Telegeography, available from: http://www.telegeography.com/products/us_voip/index.php.i

In the UK, British Telecom reports that its Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) revenue grew by more

than 34 per cent during the 2006 financial year to exceed GBP 400 million for the year ended 31 March

2006

. The Korean domestic VoIP service market was estimated to be worth around KRW 42.5 billion

(USD 36 million) in 2003, and is anticipated to grow by some 85% annually to reach KRW 320 billion

(USD 272 million) by 2007

. Telegeography considers that consumer VoIP services are beginning to

have a meaningful impact on switched service revenues.

Figure 3.5: Projected Growth in Revenues on IMS Platform, 2007-2010

Source: Pyramid Research, available from: http://www.pyramidresearch.com/store/rp_ims.htm?SC=EM8ims1.

Page 12, BT Annual Report 2006, at: http://www.btplc.com/report/report06/pdf/Annualreport2006.pdf.

http://web.net2phone.com/about/press/releases/20030205.asp.

For countries where estimates of the grey market are available, the scale of revenues (or losses) reported is

significant, suggesting a large market with strong demand – Jordan Telecom states that it sustained losses

as a result of VoIP exceeding 7.5 million Dinar (around 10 million USD) for 2001

. In Pakistan, illegal

grey traffic is estimated to cause losses of around Rs.3 billion annually (50 USD million)

. Such estimates

of the amount of ‘lost traffic’ suggest that strategies to close down ‘grey market’ operators and prevent

access by users to VoIP service have not been successful

Measures of the grey market in Internet telephony in African countries are similarly significant, at around

10-20 per cent

. VoIP was illegal in most countries in Africa (Mauritius was the first country in Africa to

launch fully liberalised and free VoIP services at the start of 2004). However, the huge margins between

the consumer prices charged by monopoly incumbents and the prices that they can obtain for traffic on the

international market have meant that parallel market operators (including ISPs and cybercafés) have

sought to bridge the gap, by proposing cheaper calls, while realising profits. Parallel markets have

developed rapidly. The Nigerian operator Nitel, estimated in 2004 that, before its 2004 reduction in the

price of international calls, 90 per cent of international calls went through the parallel market. Ghana

Telecom estimated that the parallel market in Ghana amounted to approximately US$15-25 million in

2003 (depending on estimates of rates and volumes).

4 REGULATORY ISSUES

This section reviews some of the current regulatory approaches towards VoIP, based on the survey of

country approaches listed in the Appendix Table 2. Faced with such strong market growth, regulatory

responses can be broadly classified into those countries where:

1) VoIP has been made illegal, often to protect the revenues of the incumbent (and government, in

those markets where the incumbent is a State-Owned Enterprise). These are often developing

countries. According to ITU’s analysis, VoIP was illegal in 24 countries and restricted in 37

countries at the end of 2004.

2) VoIP is unregulated, through a regulatory decision that VoIP should not be regulated. (This is

different to category 3 below).

3) The absence or lack of regulation: which is often temporary, whilst the regulator reaches a

decision on regulation, often through public consultation.

4) VoIP may be subject to similar/same regulation as PSTN, or some forms of VoIP are subject to

some/all of the same regulation as PSTN, depending on the technology used (hence the

importance of definitions). This can amount to a ‘light regulatory touch’ e.g. in the US.

5) VoIP may be subject to its own set of regulations, with its own specific licenses.

A number of countries have yet to formally conclude on their framework for VoIP regulation, including

countries which have held formal public consultations (including Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France,

Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Sri Lanka, Spain,

Page 4, Final VoIP Statement, available from the Jordanian TRC at:

http://www.trc.gov.jo/Static_English/New%20Stuff/Final%20VoIP%20Statement%20Final.doc

“Comprehensive Strategy Will be Developed Against Grey Telephony”, Press Release, 16 June 2006, Pakistan

Telecommunications Authority, available from:

http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=760&catid=92&Itemid=301

The GSR discussion paper, available from www.itu.int.

“An Overview of VoIP Regulation in Africa: Policy Responses and Proposals”, Balancing Act Africa, June 2004,

Tracy Cohen & Russell Southwood, available from http://www.balancingact-africa.com/.

Trinidad & Tobago, UK, among others) but also those countries where the regulatory framework for VoIP

is officially or unofficially “under consideration” (including Bulgaria, Cuba, Egypt, Germany, Ghana,

Kazakhstan, Mali, Poland, Russia, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, UAE).

In arriving at their regulatory approach, some of the questions that different regulators have sought to

address include:

_____________

See “IP Telephony 2001”, published by the ITU, Geneva.

Table 4.1: Regulatory Questions in relation to VoIP, mid-2006

Question Implications Examples

1. How should VoIP services be defined?

What does the regulator consider VoIP

services to be?

This determines the scope of services considered to be

included as VoIP and hence subject to regulation. (A

related question is the criteria that make it possible to

regard a service as being publicly available telephony).

See Appendix Table 1.

2. Is the provision of commercial VoIP

services legal and authorised?

If No, the country falls into Category 1 (Illegal).

If yes, proceed to Question 3.

The answers and approach adopted to these questions

determine the legal basis for proceedings against

operators (often alternative operators) providing VoIP

services.

Countries where VoIP is explicitly banned (according to most

recent data): Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Cameroon, Comoros, Costa

Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana (“yet to

legalise VoIP”), Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Kuwait, Liberia,

Mozambique, Namibia, Paraguay, Qatar, Seychelles, Swaziland,

UAE.

3. If legal, are VoIP services regulated?

If no, country falls into category 2 (unregulated).

If yes, the country falls into category 4 or 5 (regulated).

VoIP is explicitly deregulated or subject to only light regulation in

Argentina, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Barbados, Canada, Czech Rep.,

Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland,

Nicaragua, Romania, Turkey, Uruguay, US.

4. Is it necessary to obtain a license? A licensing framework gives regulators an opportunity to

lay out clear and distinct terms and conditions relating to

the provision of service. The licensing framework for

VoIP is also being considered in moves towards unified

licensing framework.

Licenses are frequently used as the means by which VoIP

business is safeguarded for the incumbent in some

markets.

(Certain) VoIP services may require a license in Algeria,

Bangladesh, Barbados, Brunei, China (to be officially confirmed),

Croatia, Dominican Rep., Egypt, Israel, Luxembourg, Mauritius,

Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Singapore,

Saudi Arabia, Slovak Rep., South Africa, Spain, Taiwan (China),

Tanzania, Uganda, Venezuela.

VoIP services may be provided by the incumbent (only) in Bahrain,

DRC Congo, Jordan, Oman, Tunisia, Uganda, Viet Nam, and

Zambia.

5. Should VoIP services be regulated like

PSTN? (& what regulations apply to PSTN).

If yes, country falls into category 4 (=PSTN).

If no, the country falls into category 5 (own regulations).

PSTN – Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden,

Switzerland, UK.

6. In more mature markets:

- Interconnection of VoIP operators

- technical and QoS standards;

- Allocation of numbers for VoIP services?

- Emergency call service, caller ID and

number portability;

- Info to be provided to consumers

- Protection of consumer interests

These questions are vital in determining:

- sophistication and capabilities of the service on offer;

- the scale of investment to establish service;

- market entry of new/new types of operators (e.g. start-

up versus established content providers);

- ultimately, whether the VoIP market is competitive;

- and the importance of consumer rights.

VoIP is (explicitly) legal in Algeria, Australia, Austria, Argentina,

Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chad

(internationally), Chile (at the local level), Colombia, Croatia,

Czech Rep., Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hong Kong, Hungary,

Iceland, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Rep. of Korea,

Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua,

Nigeria, Norway, Panama (domestically), Philippines, Portugal,

Romania, Singapore, Slovak Rep., Slovenia, S.Africa, Spain,

Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan (China), Tanzania, Thailand, Togo,

Turkey, Uganda, UK, Uruguay, US, Viet Nam, Zambia.

Source: ITU

5 REGIONAL TRENDS IN REGULATORY APPROACH TO VOIP

Based on the review of different regulatory approaches in different countries, the development of regional

approaches is apparent in some areas. This section draws together the main approaches being followed in

different regions.

5.1 North America

In the US and Canada, where VoIP applications are legal, different service models are developing – some

VoIP providers are offering their services for free, bundled in with other service offerings. Other service

providers charge for long-distance calls carried over VoIP, similar to traditional fixed-line telephone

services. Other VoIP providers allow flat-rate calling regardless of distance, a business model that is gaining

in popularity.

As defined by the 1996 Telecommunication Act that distinguishes telephone services from information

services, the FCC in the United States does not consider VoIP as a traditional telephone service, but as a

computer-based ‘information service’, that is relatively unregulated. USA has adopted a liberalized approach

to VoIP, since it is considered an Internet application/Information Service. The FCC has sought to adopt a

“light regulatory touch”. approach There are no licensing requirements, but a Universal Service contribution

is required.

5.2 Europe

VoIP is not explicitly regulated in the EC framework, and European countries have tended to develop their

own approach to VoIP in terms of regulation. This has been called by some a “laissez-faire” approach to

VoIP regulation.

In the Scandinavian countries, regulators have tended to adopt a light regulatory touch on the basis that

“voice is voice”, so Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden have referred back to the PSTN regulations.

France and Ireland adopted an early and relatively liberalized approach to VoIP and actively advocated VoIP

for open competition, greater choice and lower prices. Ireland has focused on consumer protection issues, as

illustrated by its publication of “Guidelines for VoIP service providers on the treatment of consumers” in

2005

. Access to emergency services was a specific topic of concern for the UK

. OFCOM developed an

interim forbearance policy allowing VoIP providers to offer emergency services, without other regulatory

requirements for PATS

. This was to “diminish the disincentives” to provide access to emergency services.

After consultation with the European Commission and European Regulators’ Group on the New Regulatory

framework, OFCOM ended its policy of interim forbearance policy and introduced a mandatory code of

practice for consumer information for VoIP providers

. Italy has adopted an original approach to VoIP

legislation in terms of nomadic and non-nomadic services. Germany and Poland are still under consultation

in relation to VoIP services.

These different approaches have been broadly observed by the European Commission. At the European

level, there have been moves by the European Regulators’ Group to formulate a common approach to

regulation, with pro-competitive policies a particular concern of the European Commission. More recently,

the EU Information Society and Media Commissioner has suggested that EU operators may be required to

split out their infrastructure and services divisions in order to guarantee fair access and promote competition

and investment.

“Guidelines for VoIP service providers on the treatment of consumers”, ComReg document 05/50, 14 October 2004,

available from: http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0550.pdf

“Regulation of VoIP Services”, http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/voipregulation/voipregulation.pdf).

“New Voice Services: A consultation and interim guidance”, 6 September 2004, available from www.ofcom.org.uk/.

Consultation on the Regulation of VoIP Services, Summary of the Consultation available from:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/voipregulation/voip_pec/pec.pdf

5.3 Africa

Until recently, VoIP was banned in many African countries. Many African governments continue to prohibit

VoIP adoption except by monopoly incumbents, with the notable exceptions of Mauritius (the first country

to explicitly liberalise VoIP and implement a licensing regime for VoIP services on the continent), Nigeria

and South Africa. Regulatory statements include many references to technology neutrality and service

specificity, but in practice, on the basis of the regulators' statements, VoIP is frequently only legal for those

holding an international gateway license and whilst there are moves to extend these to mobile operators, in

many countries, currently only incumbents hold international gateway licenses.

African incumbents’ initially sought to exploit profit margins between falling costs in international minutes

to relatively low prices, whilst continuing to sell them at higher PSTN prices. According to Balancing Act

Africa, these price differences arose mainly for three reasons:

• The introduction of international competition (helped by the push to deregulation and commitments

made under WTO GATS) that has pushed costs down.

• The shift to cheaper call rates through the use of data networks.

• Growing demand for international calls and the transformation of the international calling market

from a low-volume, high-margin market to a higher-volume, lower-margin market (through greater

demand from multinational corporations and migration).

This led to a large, grey market in VoIP-based calling, with VoIP service providers exploiting ‘arbitrage’

opportunities. This phenomenon even resulted in declines in the annual international traffic volumes of some

African incumbents according to Balancing Act Africa, as traffic went over to the grey market. Balancing

Act Africa concludes that “African incumbents have been faced with a much starker choice than their

developed world counterparts: to watch their traffic disappear into the grey market or devise a strategy for

attracting it back”.

5.4 Asia-Pacific

There is work underway on adopting a common approach to VoIP as part of work on NGN by APEC (Asia

Pacific Economic Cooperation). However, Asia reflects the huge diversity of approaches from early and

liberalised approaches to VoIP (e.g. Australia, Japan, Rep. of Korea, Malaysia and Singapore) to well-

developed licensing systems (e.g. Bangladesh and India) outright bans (several of the Arab states, including

Kuwait, Qatar and UAE). Where the Arab states permit VoIP, it has been mainly adopted by incumbents.

For example, in Jordan, early concerns over the introduction of VoIP originated with concerns to preserve

Jordan Telecom’s exclusivity rights, as guaranteed under its License. No entity other than Jordan Telecom

was permitted to offer voice service to the public using VoIP prior to 1 January 2005, including foreign-

originated calls terminating on Jordan’s PSTN

. Further, the use of VoIP technologies by commercial

service providers other than Jordan Telecom to convey foreign-originated voice calls for termination on

Jordan’s PSTN (including mobile networks) was deemed an infringement of JT’s License.

5.4.1 Strategy on grey market: Focus on Pakistan as an example

Of particular interest in Africa and some countries in Asia is the approach adopted towards grey operators

and the grey market

. In Pakistan, illegal grey traffic is estimated to cause losses of around Rs.3 billion

annually

. Pakistan has established a clear strategy to eliminate grey traffic and reduce illegal call

termination. In June 2006, a Vigilance Committee on illegal telecom traffic was established

, including the

Formal Statement Regarding VoIP, Page 7, Final VoIP Statement, available from the Jordanian TRC at:

http://www.trc.gov.jo/Static_English/New%20Stuff/Final%20VoIP%20Statement%20Final.doc

Defined as the use of illegal gateway exchanges to bypass legal gateways, including the use of VoIP gateways, GSM

gateways, WLL phones, mobile SIMs or other related equipment to terminate illegal traffic from abroad and bypass

PTCL gateways. This traffic may then be distributed onwards using WLL and mobile numbers.

Formal Statement Regarding VoIP, Page 7, Final VoIP Statement, available from the Jordanian TRC at:

http://www.trc.gov.jo/Static_English/New%20Stuff/Final%20VoIP%20Statement%20Final.doc.

“Comprehensive Strategy Will be Developed Against Grey Telephony”, Press Release, 16 June 2006, Pakistan

Telecommunications Authority, available from:

http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=760&catid=92&Itemid=301

Ministry of IT & Telecom, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), PTCL, telecom operators and

other concerned agencies. The Government of Pakistan sees grey market telephony as a serious concern,

causing revenue loss not only to Government, but also to all stakeholders. DSL operators and Internet

Service Providers (ISPs) were asked to provide antecedent static IP addresses to PTA on monthly basis so

that suspected IP users can be located. The PTA has developed Call Data Record (CDR) analysis that

enables PTA to identify illegal sources of call termination. This may result in Long Distance & International

(LDI) licenses being cancelled. Steps are being taken to curb the illegal call termination business. Last year,

PTA reduced the Accounting Settlement Rate by 38.6 per cent to reduce the financial incentives for grey

telephony and conducted 20 raids against illegal call termination business (with the help of PTCL and the

FIA). Technical solutions to monitor grey traffic are being explored. Illegal grey traffic is estimated to cause

losses of around Rs.3 billion annually. PTCL has been supportive of PTA efforts against grey traffic.

6 APPENDIX TABLE 1: MAIN REGULATORY DEFINITIONS OF VOIP IN USE

Country Definitions

Australia The Australian Government notes services with different levels of integration

• Peer-to-peer VoIP services for on-net calls (not connected to the PSTN)

provided online, requiring the user to have a separately-sourced broadband

connection;

• VoIP over broadband services provide interconnection with other types of voice

services (typically provided by online providers with the user having a

separately-sourced broadband connection);

• Vertically-integrated VoIP services offering interconnection with other voice

services, bundled with both a broadband connection and ISP service;

• Corporate or enterprise VoIP services providing the highest QoS of all the

VoIP service types, with interconnection to other types of voice services.

Belgium “The electronic communication service offered to the public for the purposes of

conveying speech wholly or partly over an IP network, where at least one of the

network connection points is connected to an IP network”. VoIP offerings must

thus have at least one of the end-users directly connected to an IP network.

Chile Three types of VoIP services are distinguished, and assessed according to location,

access medium, numbering, licensing and quality:

• Unidirectional web services: including PC-to-PC or PC to PSTN;

• Private or restricted service: between a closed group of users;

• Public voice services: through direct integration or Internet access of the

physical network with IP.

Hong Kong, China Distinguishes between:

Class 1 services – providing the same functionality as traditional phone service;

and

Class 2 IP telephony service – which does not provide full traditional phone

functionality (notably, excludes number portability).

India Internet telephony includes

• PC to PC (within the country, as well as abroad);

• PC to phone (PC in India, Phone abroad);

• IP-based H.323/SIP terminals in India to similar terminals both in India and

abroad, employing the IP-addressing scheme of IANA.

Israel The Ministry distinguishes between four types of VoB services

Page 15, ‘Examination of Policy and Regulation relating to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services’, Dept. of

Communications, Information Technology & the Arts, Australian Government,

http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/34194/VOIP_Report_November_2005.pdf

http://www.trai.gov.in/PressReleases_content.asp?id=280.

• Model A: Pure Internet telephony (PC to PC, including IP phones);

• Model B: VoB calls connecting to the PSTN;

• Model C: telephony provided by an ISP;

• Model D: An IP/VPN where enterprise networks are managed using IP.

In practice, for licenses, the Ministry distinguishes between domestic and

International (outgoing) VoB services.

Italy The Italian regulator distinguishes between three main types of VoIP services:

1) PATS VoIP services that are equivalent to the traditional PSTN service (e.g.,

non-nomadic services).

2) Nomadic PATS VoIP services and PATS VoIP-enabled services that have

characteristics that are different from the traditional PSTN service.

3) VoIP-enabled services accessible to the public that do not require resources

from the national numbering plan (but may use numbering/addressing resources

that are different from E.164 numbers).

Japan VoIP services are classified as:

• Communication between two telephone terminals.

• Communication between two data terminals (PC to PC).

• Communication between two types of terminals – telephone and data terminals.

A study group report (February 2002) also classified services according to quality:

• class A: quality for fixed telephony (R index: > 80; delay (end-to-end):

<100ms);

• class B: quality for mobile telephony (R index: > 70; delay(end-to-end):

<150ms);

• class C: quality enables speech (R index: > 50; delay (end-to-end): <400ms).

(Where "R index" is defined by ITU-T G.107 and "delay" from ITU-T G.114).

Jordan The Jordanian Telecommunications Regulatory Commission has distinguished

• “Phone-to-phone” VoIP: users originate calls using a telephone connected to the

PSTN and VoIP service providers carry the calls using ‘gateways’ that connect

the call to its data networks (or Internet) to another gateway connected to the

PSTN that routes the call to another telephone;

• “PC-to-PC” VoIP: users use computers or other devices to connect to the

Internet or other data network that transmits voice calls to another computer or

other device connected to the Internet, where the other participant is located;

• “PC-to-phone” VoIP: users use PCs or other devices connected to the Internet to

transmit calls to a gateway that switches the call onto the traditional circuit-

switched network, usually close to where the terminating caller is located.

Malaysia The Malaysian regulator, the Malaysia Communications and Multimedia

Commission, distinguishes between two sorts of VoIP service provision

• “PC-to-PC” VoIP: based on what is known as Internet telephony;

• “Phone-to-phone” VoIP: based through PSTN, which involves multi-stage

access dialing, known as VoIP.

OECD

• A broad definition: “conveyance of voice, fax and related services partially or

wholly over packet-switched IP-based networks, including P2P VoIP services

and VoIP services connected to PSTN”;

• A narrow definition: “voice application over IP-based networks that enables a

VoIP subscriber to call and to be called by a party subscribed to a traditional

PSTN service” (therefore excludes Peer-to-Peer VoIP).

Saudi Arabia The Saudi Communications and Information Technology Commission (CITC)

distinguishes between two types of telephony

“Policy Paper: Licensing of Voice Services Provided Over Broadband Access (VoB)”, available from the Ministry of

Communications website at: http://www.moc.gov.il/new/documents/pol_22.6.05.pdf

Formal Statement Regarding VoIP, Page 7, Final VoIP Statement, available from the Jordanian TRC at:

http://www.trc.gov.jo/Static_English/New%20Stuff/Final%20VoIP%20Statement%20Final.doc

MCMC website at http://www.cmc.gov.my/mcmc/facts_figures/codes_gl/guidelines/voip/glvoip.asp.

• VoIP: the generic name for the transport of voice traffic using IP technology.

VoIP traffic can be carried on both a private managed network or the public

Internet, or combination of both;

• IP telephony: IP telephony services relate to a form of VoIP that requires

gateways, telephone devices and E.164 numbers.

Spain VoIP providers need authorization depending on technology/network:

• Communication between two telephone terminals (individual license required).

• Communication between two data terminals (general authorization required).

• Communication between the two types of terminals – telephone and data

terminals (provisional authorization is needed).

Switzerland

VoIP includes all mechanisms to transport voice in a packetised manner over the

Internet Protocol. Generally, two aspects have to be distinguished

• Interface protocols to set up a connection, to authenticate and authorize the use

of the service, to route and charge a call;

• Interface protocols on how to code and packetise the voice and transport it over

an IP network with acceptable quality.

Taiwan, China Internet Telephony Services refer to voice services received and transmitted

through Internet provided by operators

• E.164 Internet Telephony Service” means Internet Telephony Services run by

E.164 number allocated by DGT in accordance with ITU-T Recommendation.

• Non-E.164 Internet Telephony Service means Internet Telephony Services

provided without E.164 number.

United Kingdom VoIP services include the New Voice Services referred to in the 2004 consultation,

as well as services provided over IP, which include voice services provided over

the public Internet, voice over broadband (managed and unmanaged services),

voice over Unlicensed Mobile (Wireless) Access, voice over licensed wireless,

including 3G data and (pre)WiMax-based services. The regulator OFCOM also

distinguishes between:

• PC-based services (e.g. Skype PC-to-PC service);

• Secondary-line services;

• Replacements for traditional PSTN-based call services;

• Services targeted for mobile and nomadic use, including ‘Voice over wireless’

services.

United States The United States does not treat VoIP as a traditional telephone service, but as a

computer-based ‘information service’ (as defined by the 1996 Telecommunication

Act

that distinguishes telephone services from information services).

“The Regulatory Policies Related to Fixed and Mobile Services Licensing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” at:

www.citc.gov.sa/NR/rdonlyres/4DD56B2A-FC25-43F1-A234-

28A863210C5E/0/PublicConsultationDocumentOnTheProposedPoliciesRelatedToFixedAndMobileServicesLicensing.

pdf

See the VoIP Working Group’s Working Document on VoIP, published in June 2003, available from:

http://www.bakom.admin.ch/themen/telekom/00461/00895/00915/index.html?lang=en

“Administrative Regulations on Type II Telecommunications Business”, 15 November 2005, from the Directorate

General of Telecommunications at: http://www.dgt.gov.tw/english/Regulations/dgt42/dgt42-Type2-3609.htm

Available from http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html.

7 APPENDIX TABLE 2: REGULATORY STATUS OF VOIP BY REGION

7.1 Latin America & the Caribbean

Country VoIP Status

Antigua &

Barbuda

Argentina Email, online and database extraction of information, EDI, extended fax, data processing

and/or online information, including transaction processing. VoIP is a deregulated

telecommunication service. A contribution to the Universal Service Fund (USF) will be

required, once the Fund is created.

Aruba

Bahamas

Barbados Until March 2005, VoIP was considered as an information service and was not subject to

price regulation

. VoIP for private use by individuals is permitted without regulation or

licensing. Cyber Cafés providing VoIP services had to register with the Government

Telecommunications Unit for a one-off registration fee of $100. VoIP equipment

distributors had to hold a valid Sellers and Dealers License from the Unit. VoIP suppliers

to the public using an adaptor were allowed to set up VoIP service a license for the first

year, before they had to submit audited statements of annual gross turnover to the Ministry.

If turnover exceeded a certain limit, providers were asked to pay 1.5% of turnover to the

Ministry.

In March 2005, the Telecommunications Unit conducted a public consultation on VoIP and

other IP Services

, based on a consultative document. The Ministry of Energy and Public

Utilities has been tasked with the formulation of a policy on VoIP is expected to encourage

innovation and investment, the development of VoIP and IP-enabled services, including IP

telephony; and provide businesses and consumers with greater choice. Greater competition

has resulted in access to IP (Internet Protocol) technology-based solutions including VoIP.

According to the Minister of Finance, this has resulted in 70-80% in savings for

customers

TeleBarbados Inc. and Cable & Wireless (Barbados) Limited are the two holders of full

Domestic Telecommunications Licenses issued by the Ministry of Energy and Public

Utilities

, that entitle them to provide domestic services including fixed wireless, WiMax

and Wi-Fi, data communications, VoIP and payphones. There are five holders of

international telecommunications licenses

, including Blue Communications, Cable and

Wireless (Barbados) Ltd, Digicel Barbados Ltd, Sunbeach Communication Inc. and

TeleBarbados Inc. These licenses are technologically neutral and permit licensees to use

VoIP.

Belize BTL is launching VoIP service with its WebTalk service, its new Internet Phone Service,

in August 2006, which it predicts should provide even cheaper call rates

. It has recently

slashed international call rates

Bermuda

Bolivia VoIP illegal - prohibited as a value-added service. VoIP is considered as a telephony

services, as the Telecommunications Regulations define a telephony service as a real-time

voice communication, regardless of how the service is transmitted.

Brazil IP telephony authorized as a form of telephony. Vo Internet is deregulated. The Brazilian

operator TVA offers ‘triple play’ services, with voice, Internet access and television.

Canada PSTN-interconnected VoIP services have the regulatory status of telecommunication

services. No license requirements (or registration) are required, but a contribution to the

USF is necessary.

CRTC issued its views on the regulatory framework for VoIP services in April 2004.

CRTC considered that the existing regulatory framework should apply to VoIP services,

with VoIP treated as local exchange services and subject to the local competition

regulatory framework to the extent that VoIP services provide subscribers with access

to/from the PSTN.

Chile Permitted at the local level. The regulator held a public consultation on the Regulation of

VoIP Services in July 2004

. Regulation of VoIP is based on principles of public benefit,

technological neutrality, fairness and non-discrimination, consumer protection, innovation

and minimum necessity. Where VoIP services are offered through the PSTN network,

operators are required to comply with the regulations for PSTN services. Where VoIP

services are provided over the Internet or privately for a closed group of users, they are not

subject to the same conditions. A regulatory review is underway to permit/facilitate VoIP

services over broadband, including a possible licence for this. SUBTEL is conducting a

Consultation on Telecommunications Development over the Short-term in 2006 that

includes VoIP

. In 2005, the Chilean broadband operator VTR launched the first network

for residential services based on IP technology.

Colombia VoIP has recently been made legal: in April 2006, the Ministry of Communications

published a policy paper on VoIP that made it legal in Colombia

. The Ministry of

Communications originally issued a public consultation on VoIP in June 2004. Originally,

operators offering voice services needed a PSTN licence. In telephony, long-distance

operators were allowed to provide the service (qualifying title)

. From PC to PC, VoIP

was a value-added service. The use of a PC to make calls over the Internet was not

restricted. Following the consultation, a decree was passed that gave VoIP its own specific

license category class.

VoIP is used in Colombia by different operators, including long distance operators

(Telecom, ETB and Orbitel, which launched its “Voipiar” offering to local users in early

2006) and some value-added operators providing corporate voice services, according to the

definitions set out by the Ministry of Communications in Decrees 600 and 3055 of 2003 on

value-added and telematic services. These decrees permit the transport of corporate traffic

over the data networks of value-added operators, as long as it is not used exclusively for

voice communications to or from the PSTN, nor among closed user groups. Failure to keep

with these conditions could represent a transgression of the regime that governs

telecommunications, as well as competition.

Costa Rica VoIP not allowed. VoIP is permitted only as domestic telephony over the Internet.

Cuba ILD only through the concessionaire ETECSA. VoInternet under study. Closed VoIP

networks under consideration.

Dominica

Dominican

Republic

IP telephony requires a concession (licensing restriction).

Ecuador Permitted in final end-user applications. There is a new telecommunications law pending

In February 2005, the regulator CONATEL published regulations covering cyber-cafés and

telecentres, limiting the number of terminals that can be used for VoIP.

El Salvador Currently being defined as telephony or SI service. VoInternet is an added value service

and is not regulated.

Grenada

Guatemala

Guyana VoIP not allowed.

Haiti

Honduras VoIP not allowed. Internet telephony is not legal. However, recent moves have been

undertaken to permit VoIP, provided that operators contract with the incumbent Hondutel

(these operators are described as ‘sub-operators’ and can have their own networks and sell

other licensed services). All international traffic had to be conveyed through Hondutel until

24 December 2005. On this basis, the Honduran internet provider GlobalNet Honduras will

soon launch VoIP over DSL network. GlobalNet will use Thomson's Cirpack softswitch

solutions for corporate and residential services to launch service in October 2006.

GlobalNet expects to reach 25,000 VoIP subscribers by year-end

. GlobalNet expects to

launch triple-play in 2007.

Jamaica VoIP services are widely used, vendors are actively marketing services as well as

equipment. Cable and Wireless internet subscription contracts prohibit the commercial re-

sale of VoIP services by the subscriber to third parties. Most government purchases of

voice services or PBX replacements are based on requirements for VOIP technology. The

Central Information Technology Office (CITO) has started a project to set government

standards for VoIP PBX services to ensure inter-connectivity “down the road” when a

government-wide network is implemented.

Mexico VoIP was previously illegal, but has now been legalized. VoIP providers are required to

get a license, as are any other voice telephony operators. There are currently five

registered VoIP providers, authorized to provide VoIP. IP telephony requires a concession

(licensing restriction). ILD is excluded for the moment. Telmex has already implemented

IP for the majority of its core network and various Mexican carriers are conducting trials.

Nicaragua Full competition allowed in VoIP.

Panama Prior to the initiation of market liberalisation in 2003, the Public Services Regulator had

mandated all ISPs to block IP ports identified with VoIP services, which was originally

intended to continue beyond the end of the incumbent’s monopoly (a Cable & Wireless

concession). However, in November 2002, a Supreme Court ruling annulled the order

blocking the use of VoIP for ILD calls

. Subsequently, domestic VoIP has been allowed.

Operator calling rates are authorised (for VoIP or Basic) at 12 per cent.

Paraguay VoIP not permitted. Internet telephony is not permitted.

Peru Regulation is based on the principle of functional equivalence. Telephony services require

a concession. Telephony over the Internet provided by an authorized operator is regarded

as a value-added service.

Puerto Rico

St. Kitts &

Nevis

St. Lucia

St. Vincent

Grenadines

Suriname

Trinidad &

Tobago

Trinidad and Tobago is conducting a public consultation on VoIP.

United

States of

America

The United States is not treating VoIP as a traditional telephone service, but as a computer-

based ‘information service’ (as defined by the 1996 Telecommunication Act that

distinguishes telephone services from information services), that is relatively unregulated.

USA has adopted a liberalized approach to VoIP, which is considered an Internet

application/Information Service. There are no licensing requirements, but a Universal

Service contribution is required. The FCC is examining issues for ‘IP-enabled services’

including VoIP addressing social issues (e.g. Universal Service) and the classification of

services for regulatory purposes

. In 2005, the FCC changed regulation so that VoIP

services connected to the PSTN must provide access to emergency services.

Uruguay VoIP not regulated. ANTEL is performing IP telephony tests. VoInternet freely available.

Venezuela Phone to phone VoIP is a value-added service (concession).

7.2 Asia-Pacific region

Country VoIP Status

Armenia

Australia VoIP permitted. Most VoIP services connected to the public network are considered a

standard telephone service and will attract regulatory obligations

(not P2P services).

However, the regulator has flexibility in exemptions of obligations for standard telephone

services, and has used these exemptions to assist in the deployment of VoIP services, e.g.

for Neighbourhood Cable services

. Regulation of telephone services does not impinge on

P2P services or corporate networks

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) issued a Discussion Paper

on Regulatory Issues Associated with Provision of Voice Services Using Internet Protocol

in Australia in October 2004 and held public consultations on VoIP service regulation

throughout 2004.

VoIP is used extensively in corporate networks, while broadband suppliers are now

offering VoIP to the residential market

. Australian providers of VoIP recognise that

current regulatory arrangements for voice services and existing consumer safeguards apply

to their services.

Azerbaijan VoIP is legal and permitted, but VoIP services are available only and limited to

international calls. There is no official provider of VoIP service inside of Azerbaijan - the

only organization currently providing VoIP service is "Azeurotel" Joint Venture in Baku.

For using VoIP, it is necessary to get the special IP card of "Azeurotel". They provide this

service to a limited number of users - only to the subscribers of 3 ATS - 493/497/437

(about 30 000 phone numbers). The cost of VoIP phone call is around 50% lower than

average PSTN cost, however, there is no approved state tariff for VoIP. Other private

and state companies are likely to provide VoIP service in the nearest future. VoIP service

will soon be included in the list of services of the Ministry of Communication and IT,

whereupon an uniform rate will be approved.

Bahrain Bahrain requires a license for all services with the exception of VoIP over private

networks. Only the licensed PTO can provide VoIP services.

Bangladesh VoIP is legal and requires a specific VoIP license. BTTB is currently commissioning a

common IP-based platform, to which VoIP licensees will be required to migrate. The

regulator, the Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission (BTRC), has issued

“Regulatory and Licensing Guidelines For Invitation of Applications for Issuing VoIP

Licenses for VoIP services in Bangladesh” on 21 September 2006

. In the meantime,

VoIP licensees must connect to BTTB’s submarine cable and/or BTTB’s satellite for

international VoIP services. BTTB has to inform BTRC of the start of its common platform

one month prior to operations, and VoIP licensees will then be required to conclude

operational agreements with BTTB for the use of the common platform. Licenses last five

years, with different license application fees and annual charges applying depending on the

type of operator. Revenue-sharing agreements apply, with cellular mobile operators

(category A) contributing 5% of annual revenue to BTRC. PSTN operators (category B)

pay 2%, while nationwide ISPs (category C) must pay 1% of annual audited gross

turnover. Minimum QoS standards apply, with a Minimum Opinion Score > 2.6 or R-scale

> 50 (as defined by ITU Recommendation G.107).

In September 2006, the Bangladesh Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (BTRC)

invited bids from private sector for Voice over Internet Protocol licenses, following cabinet

approval of VoIP in the private sector in November 2003. The commission invited bids

through its website (www.btrc.org.bd

) and national dailies. The ‘regulatory and licensing

guidelines of VoIP’ state that VoIP licenses will be awarded to the interested operators

who fulfill the technical and financial specifications of the regulatory commission. The last

day of submission of the bids is October 8. Licences will be given initially for five years

with a renewal option.

According to the licensing conditions, a mobile phone operator has to pay Tk 10 crore to

the BTRC as license fee, plus Tk 2 crore in annual license fees and 5% of VoIP revenues.

The regulatory commission will keep Tk 20 lakh in security deposit in case of prepaid

VoIP services. A land phone operator will have to pay Tk one crore for license acquisition,

Tk 20 lakh in annual license fees, and 2% of its VoIP revenues. The commission will

charge a nationwide internet service provider Tk 50 lakh for a VoIP license, Tk 7 lakh in

annual fees, and 1% of revenues. An ISP has to keep Tk 5 lakh as security deposit with the

commission for offering prepaid VoIP services. The licensed operators have to use BTTB’s

VoIP platforms to be set up at four places — Dhaka, Chittagong, Sylhet, and Bogra — for

monitoring voice traffic.

“Bids Invited for VoIP Licenses”, 23 September 2006.

http://www.deshimobile.com/news_main.php?nid=686

Brunei

Darussalam

VoIP constitutes a Value-Added Service (VAS) that needs a SeTi Licence: “Operators

licensed to provide this service may provide value-Added Services that are accessible

through the telecommunication services (mobile, non-fixed, fixed or resale of telecom

services)”

. A SeTi Licence is required by operators who sell services to consumers or

corporate customers (operators do not own infrastructure outside of their own premises, but

use the infrastructure provided by InTi Licensees). Invites for SeTi Licenses are initiated

by the regulator, AiTi, and require the authorisation of AiTi and the Broadcasting Unit.

However, VAS that are accessible through the Public Internet Access License but not

through the telecommunication services are not included and do not need a SeTi Licence

(this includes operators who store and forward, store and retrieve and audiotex services and

includes providers of mobile ringtone, download and chat providers).

China Until as recently as 2005, the Chinese MII had not formulated guidelines concerning VoIP

businesses and that many VoIP businesses were considered potentially illegal. However,

basic telecommunication licensees were allowed to offer VoIP services and use IP

technology in their core networks, with the deployment of IP technology driven by the

basic service operators (China Unicom, China Telecom and China TieTong). ISPs could

only offer PC-to-PC VoIP services. VoIP was not classified as either a value-added

network service or basic service.

However, in mid-2005, the Ministry of Information Industry (MII) announced VoIP trials

for industry segments to begin deployment of VoIP services in four Chinese cities

(e.g.

Koncept won a bid for the VoIP trial in cooperation with Shenzhen Telecom, to become a

selected VoIP 'Internet Communications Engine' for authorized Chinese Internet Content

Providers). MII will now issue VoIP licenses. The Government is still considering whether

to ban the use of VoIP services provided by those other than licensed operators

. The use

of Skype has been deemed illegal

DPR Korea No information available.

Georgia

Hong Kong,

China

OFTA conducted a public consultation on IP telephony in 2004 and announced its

regulatory framework for IP telephony services in June 2005

. More recently, in October

2005, the Numbering Advisory Committee launched a consultation into the emergency

numbering for VoIP services. There are two classes of IP Telephony service: Class 1

service and Class 2 service

. Class 1 service is an IP telephony service that has all the

attributes of the conventional telephone service. These carry eight-digit numbers and a ‘2’

or ‘3’ as prefix. Class 2 services do not have all the attributes of the conventional telephone

service and are distinguished by their ‘57’ or ‘58’ prefix. Providers must also declare that

their service is Class 2.

Both classes of providers are obliged to provide free emergency call services and back-up

power supply for ‘lifeline’ devices. However, number portability is provided only by Class

1, but not by Class 2 IP telephony service.

In Hong Kong, industry is particularly concerned about whether services-based operators

who do not invest in network facilities should be admitted into the IP service market, an

issue that the Director of OFTA notes is a ‘given’ elsewhere

. The network operators are

worried that diversion of revenue to the services-based operators would undermine the

incentive to invest in the networks. Hong Kong Broadband Network has launched its

second generation of broadband phone services. The 2b Broadband Phone service opens a

new chapter in the development of HKBN and is a software-based VOIP phone service

India The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) provided its recommendations to

Government on Internet telephony on 20 February 2002

to foster competition, improve

options and prices for the consumers and provide technological flexibility to the providers

while maintaining QoS.

VoIP has been legal since 1 April 2002. Facility-based operators

can provide Internet telephony and use VoIP technology to manage their networks, subject

to QoS considerations.

TRAI issued regulations on quality for VoIP ILD calls, differentiating between toll quality

and below-toll quality in November 2002

. Subsequent amendments abolished the below-

toll quality distinction and refer only to one category of toll-quality QoS

. TRAI has

recommended that: the one-way end-to-end delay should in no case exceed 150 µseconds;

that variability (jitter) should be less than 5%; and that packet loss should not exceed 1%.

Tariffs for toll quality service offered by facility-based operators should be the same as for

equivalent PSTN-based services. The tariffs of VoIP services offered by ISPs over the

public Internet are not regulated, as this is an application of a Value-Added Service.

Indonesia VoIP license is generally awarded to ISP – Internet Service Provider. To date, the

Government has issued 14 licensed VoIP (phone-to-phone) operators, including existing

PSTN and cellular operators.

These VoIP operators are classified as service-based operators, because they do not have

their own customer base, but provide services to the customers of PSTN and Mobile

operators. Almost all of VoIP operators are using a two-step dialing scheme using the

170XY access code and dependent of E1 line from PSTN and/or mobile operators. Other

than the existing PSTN and cellular operators, other operators may be given single step

dialling using 010XY access code, but they can not operate this method before they have

the agreement of the incumbent PSTN and mobile operators. Given the present network

condition in Indonesia, where the majority of the networks are still narrow-band, VoIP PC-

to-PC is classified as an ISP service. But in the near future, VoIP operators will probably

be able to build their own customer base using the IP networks (e.g WiFi-WIMAX). The

Government is now considering the growth of VoIP for network or facility-based

operators, instead of as service-based operator as it is now. Therefore, it will be necessary

to re-formulate some regulatory issues like numbering, access code, routing,

interconnection etc.

Israel VoIP and VoB are permitted. It is permitted to provide telephony services by VoIP

technology, using the broadband access service provided by a Domestic Telephony

Provider (DTP) under Specialized DTP (SDTP) licenses. Licenses for VoB have been

issued since mid-2005. The Government conducted a hearing on telecommunications and

review of licensing during 2004, as a result of which, the Ministry approved its licensing

policy principles for the provision of telephony services supply through broadband access

services (VoB or Voice over Broadband) at the end of November 2004

. These principles,

were published by the Israeli Ministry of Communications in its “Policy Paper: Licensing

of Voice Services Provided Over Broadband Access (VoB)” on 28 November 2004

. The

Ministry distinguishes between four types of VoB services:

• Model A: Pure Internet telephony (PC to PC, including IP phones) -“following accepted

practice in many countries worldwide, the Ministry policy is not to regulate such

activity with licenses according to Law” (p.4);

• Model B: VoB calls connecting to the PSTN – this is telephony in quality and substance

and should be regulated by licensing;

• Model C: telephony provided by an ISP - this is telephony in quality and substance and

should be regulated by licensing;

• Model D: An IP/VPN where enterprise networks are managed using IP technology –

regulation shall be carried out within the regulation of consumer premise equipment.

Domestic VoB services for wireline communications will be regulated by SDTP licenses

and regulations. Licenses for VoB shall be granted in 2005

. International (outgoing) VoB

services are regulated in the framework of ITP licenses and are only given to International

Telephony Provider (ITP) licensees who provide the full range of ITP services.

Japan VoIP is permitted and is subject to minimal regulation. The legal framework distinguishes

three types of VoIP services, based on the quality of service. Providers that do not need

numbers for their operations (e.g. PC-to-PC communications) do not have to comply with

QoS requirements;

• If the provider can ensure minimum standards of QoS (in end-to-end voice quality and

end-to-end voice delay), they qualify for the 050-prefix numbers assigned by the

regulator since September 2002.

• Where quality is as good as PSTN, providers have been allowed to use the same

numbers as PSTN, since 2003.

• Tariffs and access charges for VoIP services are not regulated. Emergency calls and

direct access must be available from VoIP lines, and numbers must observe location

correspondence.

Only if the VoIP provider is a facility-based operator is interconnection required. VoIP

providers have to pay access charges to the PSTN operators when calls are terminated on

their networks.

Jordan The Ministry of ICT undertook a public consultation on the proper regulatory treatment of

VoIP technologies in late 2002. The Telecommunications Regulatory Commission

published a Final VoIP Statement in 2003 to clarify the position on Jordan Telecom’s

exclusivity for the provision of communication services. Prior to 1 January 2005, users

could use a computer or other device attached to the Internet or other data communication

network to make voice calls, so long as there was no involvement with a service provider

in Jordan

. No entity other than Jordan Telecom was permitted to offer voice service to the

public using VoIP prior to 1 January 2005, including foreign-originated calls terminating

on Jordan’s PSTN

. Voice services using VoIP technology were viewed by the regulator

as the equivalent of voice services provided using circuit-switched technologies

. The

regulator adopted a technologically neutral position with regards to the technologies used

to transport voice traffic and provide services to end-users

On the 21st of October 2004, the Council of Ministers approved the TRC's new licensing

programme, which opened the fixed market to competition from 1 January 2005 and

introduced a simple integrated license allowing licensees to offer any service. Existing

Class licensees –including all ISP licenses- were brought under the new integrated

licensing regime as new infrastructure-based operators and can now offer their own VoIP

services

On 9 May 2005, the regulator issued a consultation document on the delivery of voice

communication services delivered using the IP, including issues of distinctions between

different types of services, provision of information, numbering, emergency services,

interconnection, the requirement for class licenses and QoS issues

. Licensed PTO and

Other operators can compete in this market.

Kazakhstan In Kazakhstan, there are currently no specific regulatory provisions with regards to VoIP

However, the situation is likely to change, since a Program on the Development of the

Telecommunications Industry in Kazakhstan for 2006-2008 was adopted

recently. According to this programme, the regulator will take measures towards

development of the IP telephony, including rules regulating the data transmission services

and VoIP

. Meanwhile, Kazakh Telecom is constructing a trunk (backbone) data

communication network based on IP MPLS technology

, with new access networks based

on “Metro Ethernet” technology. All large cities now have broadband, and Kazakhtelecom

is moving from the provision of traditional services to services such as IP/VPN, VoIP,

VoD (video), e-commerce and other services.

Korea, Rep. VoIP is legal, with approval from the Ministry of Information and Communications of

Korea. The Ministry is a firm proponent of VoIP, as it considers that the voice market will

surely be evolving towards VoIP technology, despite outstanding questions over tariff

structure. At the end of 2004, the Ministry approved the practice of VoIP resale for VoIP

resellers Samsung Networks, Anyuser Cybertelco and seven others. In July 2005, seven

backbone ISPs (including KT, Hanaro and Dacom) were also approved. In 2005, policies

on VoIP to PSTN calls were established to standardize connection and call fees

. The

Ministry approved a separate numbering system for VoIP services. Based on these policy

directives, Samsung Networks and Anyuser formally began VoIP services using the

identifier code 070 in August 2005, and the backbone ISP, KT, began services in

November 2005 with Hanaro Telecom and SK Tellink following suite in December.

Kuwait VoIP services are prohibited

Kyrgyzstan

Lao PDR

Lebanon Lebanon does not have a specific law on VoIP and the government is currently undecided

about allowing VoIP, considering that it may have an adverse effect on international phone

traffic. The government has stated that ISPs can provide a maximum upload speed of

32kbit/s for residential broadband services, at speeds that are insufficient for the provision

of VoIP services. However, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the Ministry

of Telecommunication in January 2006 for the commercial launch of DSL from March

2006 onwards

. This means that in practice, VoIP is rather more a future prospective,

rather than current reality.

Macao,

China

Malaysia VoIP is legal in Malaysia. The Ministry of Energy Communications and Multimedia had

previously issued a policy position that the provision of PC-to-PC base internet telephony

was not subject to licensing. However, the provision of VoIP services requires an

Applications Service Provider (ASP) Individual licence as stipulated in the

Communications and Multimedia (Licensing) Regulations 2000

. VoIP can be offered by

both Network Facilities Providers and Network Service Providers, under the terms of their

licenses

. Currently, there are more than 80 providers licensed to offer VoIP

. VoIP

service providers are responsible for ensuring that QoS criteria are met and voice passes

through their networks with minimal loss and unauthorized access, in accordance with the

performance indicators benchmarked by the VoIP service provider. Access to the VoIP

service is through a special dialed code. The Malaysian regulator, the Malaysia

Communications and Multimedia Commission, has issued non-binding guidelines on the

provision of VoIP services (including a Freephone helpdesk and investigation of

complaints)

. In the event of breach of licence conditions, the Commission can take action

according to the licence conditions.

Maldives

Mongolia

Myanmar

Nepal VoIP had not yet been explicitly legalized as recently as 2004

. The Nepal

Telecommunications Authority has however, been conducting consultations with operators

as to the future regulation of VoIP. It held a conference on VoIP in September 2004

involving all the local stakeholders

. As of September 2004, the licenses of NDCL and

UTL did not specify any technology to be used for the carriage. Operators can use

managed IP as the transport technology for voice traffic. However, as of September 2004,

UTL was using TDM for voice

. NTA considers that:

- PC-to-PC should be exempted for present licensees for QoS below toll quality;

- PC-to-Phone abroad should be exempted for present licensees for QoS below toll

quality;

- Any operator or ISP that is willing to transmit through a single VoIP gateway should

be allowed to operate Phone-to-Phone service using VoIP

- NTA considers that incoming VoIP calls should be restricted for the time being (as in

India)

- VoIP should be implemented for NLD.

New

Zealand

VoIP providers are defined and treated in the same way as PSTN operators and are subject

to the same regulations.

Oman VoIP is legal. It is defined as a telecommunications service. VoIP services can be offered

by operators in possession of a valid class I license

. Omantel is the only licensee in the

Sultanate authorized to provide voice services, by virtue of its Fixed-line Class I License. It

also has the “full right to curb any illegal activities being conducted by its subscribers,

which may hurt its licensed business activities”

. The regulator, the Omani

Telecommunication Regulatory Authority, emphasizes however that VoIP has not been

banned or declared illegal, as it is authorised for Class I License holders (i.e. Omantel).

Omantel has recently been engaged in the blocking of unlicensed voice services. Omantel

has announced that it will introduce an end-to-end IP communications services network.

Pakistan PTA has issued technology-neutral licenses. VoIP services may be offered by Long

Distance & International (LDI) and Local Loop (LL) licensees. 11 companies in Pakistan

offered VoIP in 2005

. Some new operators are looking to deploy IP-based networks and

PTA is working on the necessary arrangements to tackle issues of QoS, numbering plan,

internet telephony and costing methodologies etc.

ISPs are not allowed to offer VoIP.

ISPs are licensed as either Electronic Information Service (EIS) or Non-Voice

Communication Network Service (NVCNS) providers, neither of which permits licensees

to allow voice over their data circuits

‘Grey telephony’ is illegal in Pakistan (the use of illegal gateway exchanges to bypass legal

PTCL gateways and terminate/originate international traffic, including through VoIP

gateways, GSM gateways, WLL phones, mobile SIMs or other related equipment. This

traffic may then be distributed onwards using WLL and mobile numbers). PTA has issued

policy guidelines to ISPs, PTCL, cellular mobile, LDI, LL and WLL operators to address

illegal call termination/origination. Different guidelines have been issued to licensees,

depending on the nature of their businesses. Licensed operators are responsible for

maintaining updated client records, monitoring clients (in specific categories such as heavy

users, users with a specific pattern of usage etc.), the correctness of their customer’s

antecedents, and for overseeing clients on the transportation of voice on data circuits and

formulation of their SOPs /procedures to discourage illegal activities and helping PTA

. A

clear strategy and a Vigilance Committee have been established to eliminate grey traffic

and illegal call termination in June 2006

, comprising the Pakistan Telecommunication

Authority (PTA), the Ministry, PTCL and other operators. PTA now regulates international

bandwidth rates

and has directed PTCL to review its rates to promote broadband in

Pakistan, building on Pakistan’s Broadband Policy published in December 2004

Palestine In 2000, the Palestinian Telecommunications Company (Paltel) signed an agreement with

Startec Global Communications Corporation, an integrated communications provider for

VoIP, data and Internet services, to deliver inbound and outbound VoIP services to the

Palestinian market

Papua New

Guinea

Telikom PNG has plans to introduce broadband Internet shortly

. Otherwise, no

information available.

Philippines In August 2005, the National telecommunications Commission issued new regulations

treating VoIP as a value-added service. Registration is required, but not authorisation.

Commercial VoIP providers with no networks of their own are required to enter into

interconnection agreements with network operators (NTC will intervene where necessary

to ensure fair terms for interconnection). Local exchange and inter-exchange operators and

overseas carriers who have previously received authorisation are not required to register

with the NTC when providing VoIP services.

Qatar VoIP is illegal - the provision of VoIP services is banned.

Saudi

Arabia

On 2 January 2006, the Communications and Information Technology Commission (CITC)

announced its intent to issue new licenses for the Fixed and Mobile Telecommunications

Services

. Throughout Q1 2006, CITC undertook a Public Consultation on the

Development of Policy Positions on key issues including Scope of Services, Resale,

Carrier Selection and VoIP

. CITC has published a Public Consultation Document entitled

“The Regulatory Policies Related to Fixed and Mobile Services Licensing in the Kingdom

of Saudi Arabia” to summarise proposed regulatory policies for licensing and invite

comments

. It addresses: Scope of Services, Interconnection, IP Telephony and VoIP,

Spectrum Management, Unbundling, Carrier Selection, Local Number Portability and QoS.

According to the public consultation document, all IP telephony Facilities-Based Providers

(FBPs) should provide the same emergency services for VoIP as for PSTN, a new

numbering scheme and access code, lawful interception. FBPs will not be allowed to block

traffic without prior approval from CITC. CITC is formulating guidance on QoS criteria

and the technical aspects of IP telephony interconnection in conjunction with industry and

market groups (page 30).

Singapore VoIP is legal. The Singaporean regulator InfoComm Development Authority (IDA)

proposed a Policy Framework for IP Telephony and Electronic Numbering in September

2004

and published its Decision on the Policy Framework for IP Telephony on 14 June

2005

, including an Explanatory Memorandum

and Licensing Guidelines

, with a policy

of regulatory forbearance where appropriate. IDA seeks to regulate in a transparent, non-

discriminatory and technologically neutral manner – IDA does not specify which

technologies should be used, but leaves technological decisions to industry. VoIP operators

are not required to meet number portability, directory or emergency services or IDA’s QoS

levels, but must inform users of service limitations and provide clear information to

subscribers about service capabilities (emergency service access and quality). The IDA

issues licenses and phone numbers for VoIP services to facilitate the entry of companies

interested in offering IP telephony. Both facilities-based operators (FBOs) and service-

based operators (SBOs) can be licensed. IDA will issue a new 8-digit number to both

FBOs and SBOs. There are minimal regulatory obligations to promote the expansion of

VoIP services – operators are not required to provide number portability, emergency

service connection, directory services or conform to the QoS levels set by IDA. In March

2006, IDA announced its NGN National Infocom Infrastructure plan, which will enable

facilities-based competition and allow players from the whole telecom value chain to

participate in the market.

Sri Lanka VoIP has not been formally authorized, but nor has it been formally prohibited.

Under the terms of their license, any operator that has a license to provide voice telephony

services can use any form of technology to provide that service; so voice is a service, VOIP

is a technology; and according to the terms of the license, there is no real legal issue. The

legality of using VoIP is, however, in question for ISPs – here, the ISP license is not for

voice transmission, so VOIP is in effect "illegal" when provided by ISP operators who do

not have a license for voice telephony.

The terms of the international gateway licenses specify that voice would have to be

converted from IP-based to circuit-switched when handing over to local operators.

VoIP is used widely, particularly in the Western Province and even advertised to some

extent, but no operator has been formally authorized to offer VOIP services. The position

of the 3 fixed and 4 mobile telephony operators is that VOIP ought to be legalized, as they

consider that VOIP can help grow their business as technology changes. Under the

leadership of its new Director General, the Regulatory Commission considers that

connectivity and access are key and a specific statement on VOIP is likely to be issued

soon.

Syria According to the Syrian Ministry of Communications and Technology's website, VoIP is

now legal and the government is planning to permit ISPs to provide VoIP

. By April 2006,

the Ministry had already started implementing an infrastructure project for providing high-

speed internet services. The project will make possible the provision of a variety of online

services, such as e-government & e-commerce services, VoIP, and other related services.

The project consists of creating a national network based on 3 IXP-related through-fiber

optic secure connections, which will be linked to 50 servers with capacity of 20 000 web

pages dedicated to different online services. International secure connections will also be

established. over 30 ISP are expected to provide these services shortly.

Taiwan,

China

VoIP is legal and regulated in Taiwan. “Internet Telephony Service” is defined as voice

services received and transmitted through the Internet provided by operators. The

Directorate General of Telecommunications (DGT) published its Administrative

Regulations on Type II Telecommunications Business on 15 November, 2005

. Internet

Telephony Service Operators (both E.164 and non-E.164) need to apply for a “Type II

Telecommunications Special Business” license from DGT. The governing authority of

Type II Telecommunications Business is the Ministry Of Transportation and

Communications, and DGT is responsible for their licensing, supervision and regulation.

To provide E.164 Internet Telephony Service in Taiwan, operators must submit

documents relating to provision of free emergency telephone service, information

verification for customers whose E.164 numbers are allocated by foreign authorities, and

assistance in enforcing legal interception.

Taiwan has a flourishing VoIP market. By 30 June 2006, there were a total of 87 non-

E.164 Internet telephony service providers registered with the Directorate General of

Telecommunications

Tajikistan

Thailand CAT offers international VoIP service.

Turkmenista

UAE The Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRA) and Supreme Committee have

formulated a National Telecom Policy to make UAE an ICT hub for the region. Value-

added services and an advanced network infrastructure are a key part of the NTP

. VoIP is

currently not allowed in the UAE at present, but the TRA is working on a regulatory

framework for it. Once the TRA has finalized the framework, they will announce it.

The

TRA currently distinguishes between Short Number Services (that all users with UAE

must be able to reach) and Value-Added Services using non-geographic numbers.

In preparation for the introduction of VoIP, the Dubai Internet City uses an IP telephony

system

and Etisalat Corporation is moving forward with plans to migrate to an all-IP

network and extend IP applications to its customers in the UAE market

. Etisalat reports

that it offers fixed line services over its new Next Generation Network (NGN), and has

been migrating sections of its users onto the advanced network. The timeline for

completion of migration is the end of 2007

. By establishing its NGN, Etisalat aims to

offer voice, video and data over a single network in true Triple-Play functionality. It aims

to introduce cost effective telephony solutions for small businesses and large residential

customers. In July 2006, Etisalat signed two Memoranda of Understanding with Mitel

Networks, a UK supplier of IP communications solutions. Under the terms of the first

MoU, Mitel will provide Etisalat an IP-based voice platform MN 3300 Integrated

Communication Platform (ICP) to be installed at Etisalat head office in Abu Dhabi

. The

second MoU covers the provisioning of a Hosted Key System application- Mitel 3600.

Uzbekistan

Viet Nam VoIP is legal and provided by the Vietnam Post & Telecommunications Corp., including

from public payphone facilities. VoIP is subject to price regulation and included in the

price decisions of the Ministry of Posts and Telematics. International VoIP calls made

using prepaid calling cards are cheaper (Maximum charge rate: US$0.50/minute) than

international Voice-over-IP (VoIP) services (maximum US$0.50/minute)

. International

IP telephone calls can be made from public service points. The Ministry issued a decision

on the charges of international telephone calls using the Internet protocol (IP) using the

public switched telephone network (PSTN) in March 2003

. For international IP telephone

calls can be made from public service points, there are communications charges as well as

another surcharge regulated to be collected by the service provider.

Yemen There are a few ISPs providing VoIP, but this does not necessarily mean that it is legal.

The Yemen Public Telecommunications Company signed a contract in September 2006

with Mitel for its IP communications.

7.3 Europe

Country VoIP Status

Austria VoIP is permitted, with no need for a license for the provision of VoIP services over the

Internet. PTS over VoIP is subject to voice telephony licensing requirements, if managed

VoIP traffic forms part of the core network of a PTS operator. The Austrian regulator RTR

conducted a consultation on the numbering for VoIP services. VoIP service providers are

subject to loose regulations. These services have only to be notified, according to the

Telecommunications Act. The incumbent announced its cooperation with a US-based VoIP

carrier establishing an IP interconnection.

Belgium VoIP is considered as a simple voice service, separate and distinct from traditional

telephony. VoIP providers have only to declare when they start offering services. The

Belgian regulator BIPT is planning to undertake a consultation on VoIP.

Bulgaria No official licensing/authorization regime for VoIP, as long as minimum QoS

requirements for voice telephony are met. There is no official position as to whether VoIP

services should meet the QoS parameters for fixed voice telephony service.

Croatia VoIP is legal and governed by the 2003 Telecommunications Act 122/03. VoIP providers

must first notify the regulator in order to gain the right to provide VoIP telecommunication

services. Operators wishing to provide Internet services, VoIP, video-conferencing and

other value-added services must apply to the regulator, the Croatian Telecommunication

Agency, for a license under Article 23 of the Telecommunications Act 122/03

. The CTA

maintains a list of all licensed VoIP providers

Cyprus Geographic number ranges are not open to VoIP services in Cyprus

. The Cypriot

regulator OCECPR is planning to undertake a consultation on VoIP.

Czech Rep. VoIP services, including prices, remain unregulated as a data service. VoIP providers do

not have to be an owner of a telecommunications license for provision of PSTN services. A

number of operators offer VoIP services and the Czech regulator Česk y Telekomunikacní

Úrad assigned the service number 910 in the Numbering plan to VoIP services

. Operators

and service providers need to sign interconnection agreements with other operators, with a

"model" agreement on interconnection has been developed by the APVTS Economic

Committee

Denmark No specific regulations apply to VoIP providers. VoIP services were not officially offered

on the market, until as recently as mid-2003. IP telephony over the Internet is not covered

by the Danish Telecom regulation, with IP telephony considered as content. Other forms of

IP telephony which do constitute telecom services can be provided under Danish telecom

regulation without any license requirements. The Danish regulator NTA conducted a

consultation on the numbering for VoIP services. Consumer protection rules are an

obligation for all telecom service providers.

Estonia VoIP is legal in Estonia, but there are no special regulations, standards etc. The Estonian

National Communications Board (ENCB, Sideamet) considers that rights, obligations and

conditions for VoIP services should be based on technologically neutral and transparent

regulatory principles. There are thus no specific obligations relating to VoIP as a separate

technology.

VoIP is regarded as a telephone service and all the general requirements from telecom law

and decrees extend to VoIP. There were 31 registered VoIP providers in mid-2003.

Geographic number ranges are not open to VoIP services in Estonia

ENCB treats VoIP services as telephone service if it fulfills three parts of the PATS

definition (publicly available, enables originating and receiving inter/national call through

an E.164 number), otherwise it is a data communication service.

Rights and obligations for communications undertakings and communications services are

regulated in Electronic Communications Act and its sub-acts

Faroe Isls. See Denmark – same regulations apply.

European

Union (EU)

Under the EU regulatory framework of July 2003, players (including VoIP providers) are

free to enter the market for electronic communications services without prior authorization,

provided they abide by the conditions of the general authorization applicable in each

Member State.

VoIP providers will face obligations under the EU framework depending on the service,

rather than the technology used to provide it. The EU aims to adopt a light regulatory

touch, taking into account the emerging nature of the technology, whilst preserving

consumer interests (e.g. access to emergency services). The EU issued an Information and

Consultation Document on the Treatment of VoIP under the EU Regulatory Framework in

June 2004

Finland In October 2003, the regulator imposed regulations on VoIP service providers using

broadband networks similar to those imposed on PSTN operators. VoIP services are

classified as enhanced services, which are not regulated provided the service provider does

not make any subscription agreement with the user.

The rights and obligations of VoIP providers depend on the type of service

, with VoIP

services and networks subject to the regulations for services and networks. The Finnish

regulator (FICORA) must be notified, with an annual fee chargeable. Interconnection and

numbering regulations will apply.

France France published one of the earliest public consultations, with a public call for comments

on VoIP in 1999. VoIP operators are subject to the general authorization framework from

25 July 2004, along with other telecom providers. Operators have to notify the regulator,

ART. The French regulator has conducted a consultation on the numbering for VoIP

services. It is also one of the first regulators to publish official statistics for the number of

VoIP subscribers, which amounted to 1.5 million at the end of March 2005, accounting for

1.5 billion minutes or 6% of total traffic

Germany

VoIP is not regarded as a voice telephony service as defined in the Telecommunication Act

(or by the EU). Therefore, VoIP providers are not subject to a license and they must only

be notified. Previously, the Regulatory Authority for Telecommunications and Post

(RegTP) has not regulated VoIP services due to the real-time problem. However, in April

2004, RegTP opened a public consultation on VoIP. The regulator will formulate its formal

regulatory position on VoIP in light of comments received

Greece A general authorization from the government is required to offer VoIP services. Otherwise,

VoIP providers are subject to minimal regulatory oversight.

Greenland See Denmark.

Hungary VoIP became legal in July 1999. At that stage, VoIP providers required a license and, in a

novel approach, providers had to ensure that the quality of their services was less than that

of traditional PSTN service (until the end of Matav’s exclusive license in 2002). These

voice quality restrictions (requiring a minimum 250 ms average delay in speech signal

transmission and loss of speech packets under 1%

) lasted between 1998-2002, but were

lifted with the start of the liberalization of the voice market. Now, VoIP providers no

longer need a license, and no registration is required. In its effort to promote the Internet

and spread its benefits, the Hungarian Ministry has used arguments of regulatory

deficiency to allow VoIP services and to avoid prosecuting VoIP service providers.

Iceland VoIP providers are subject to the same requirements as traditional PSTN operators,

including license requirements. VoIP providers are not distinguished from other voice

telephony operators. Iceland is reviewing whether geographic number ranges should be

open to VoIP services

. Iceland Telecom is working to establish a portfolio of corporate

VoIP services and carried out tests on VoIP services in 2005 for future

commercialization

. Its corporate suite of VoIP services is called IP Centrex, an IP-based

virtual PBX service suited to businesses with geographically remote operations.

Ireland VoIP is legal. VoIP providers are free to operate subject to General Authorisation, once

they have notified the regulator. VoIP is unregulated, insofar as the service is provided by

an operator other than the incumbent. Obligations on the incumbent include network

requirements (e.g. the provision of access to its own network via interconnection

agreements with other operators and service-level agreements for provision of

facilities/services to customers), as well as service obligations (relating to consumer

protection, price publication and itemized billing for the call). The framework for VoIP in

Ireland consists of the following directions by the regulator ComReg:

• a Consultation on “Numbering for VoIP services”

in June 2004 and ComReg’s

response “VoIP Services in Ireland” in October 2004

;

• A range of geographic and non-geographic numbers was made available to VoIP

service providers (PATS and ECS), with a single retail price point established

. Full

number portability rights/obligations attach to the new VoIP numbers (staged

implementation to avoid burdening new operators)

100

• In 2005, it published “Guidelines for VoIP service providers on the treatment of

consumers” to address consumer protection issues

101

. Although emergency services

and call location are not mandatory, they are strongly encouraged.

ComReg published its “Review of the VoIP regulatory framework” in 2006

102

Italy The Italian communications regulatory authority, AGCOM, held a public consultation on

regulatory interventions for VoIP-enabled services that concluded on 26 August 2005.

VoIP is allowed according to the EU Communication 98/C6/04 (Voice communication

over Internet). AGCOM distinguishes three main types of VoIP-enabled services that are

currently available on the Italian market

103

. VoIP services are treated as equivalent to data

transmission services and subject to general authorisation. Self-provided consumer VoIP

and corporate internal VoIP use on a business LAN/WAN are not subject to the

requirement for general authorisation, in accordance with the guidance provided by the

European Commission

104

Luxembourg Following the recommendations of the EC on VoIP issues, no differential treatment for

VoIP services is planned, except for the incumbent. A license will be necessary for

interconnection with PSTN networks. Luxembourg is planning to create a sub-category of

geographic VoIP numbers, in order to allow portability between VoIP and other

services

105

Malta Malta is reviewing whether geographic number ranges should be open to VoIP services as

part of a consultation exercise in 2004

106

Montenegro The Agency for Telecommunications of Montenegro has decided to regulate VoIP. Some

parties have expressed interest in the provision of VoIP services, but there have also been

cases of VoIP abuse. In 2003, the Agency began its work to revise existing licenses and

prepare for new licenses for international services, VoIP, “call-back” and leased lines,

etc

107

. In mid-2005, the Agency formed a Working Group to make a close analysis of the

regulation of VoIP in Europe. The Agency plans to complete its work on VoIP in 2006, so

that providers of VoIP services can start work in Montenegro by the end of 2006.

Netherlands VoIP services are not so far qualified as public telephone services. The Dutch regulator

OPTA is planning to undertake a consultation on VoIP.

Norway VoIP providers are regulated in the same way as telecom operators on the basis that ‘voice

is voice’, regardless of the technologies used. The Norwegian regulator PT conducted a

consultation on VoIP in 2004.

Poland Provision of VoIP is currently unregulated. VoIP services are not covered by separate

regulation from traditional telecommunications services. Under the Telecommunications

Law, international telephone services including VoIP may not be provided by entities other

than public telecom operators.

The Polish regulator is currently holding a public consultation on its regulatory position, as

a result of which, it should finalise its position

108

. Geographic number ranges are not open

to VoIP services in Poland

109

Portugal The licensing regime identifies ‘Voice on the Internet’ and VoIP (both can qualify as Fixed

Telephone Service). VoIP service providers are subject to license, where they are also

classified as fixed telephone service providers, whereas pure VoIP service providers (using

the public Internet to carry IP traffic) are subject to registration.

Romania VoIP networks do not constitute a separate category of networks, with no dedicated

regulation of VoIP networks. Providers of electronic communication networks or services

(including VoIP) must notify ANRC. VoIP providers are providers of “other electronic

communications services” (i.e. data transmission services) and must comply with the

general authorization regime. VoIP providers are distinct from companies that run services

only for their own internal use using their own networks (private enterprise network), that

do not need ANRC authorisation

110

. The Romanian regulator ANRC has plans to undertake

a consultation on VoIP (as stated to ERG).

Russia VoIP is not specifically prohibited in Russia, although neither has it yet been legalized.

The main document currently relating to VoIP is "The Directive on the Telematic

service"

111

that permissively refers to VoIP-like services, defining them as "sending voice

over data networks". The interpretation of the regulatory framework for VoIP in Russia is a

very complex issue and still the subject of heated debate in the community. To provide this

‘telematic’ service, a telematic license with the possibility of sending voice over data is

required.

The interconnection regulations of the PSTN network (whereby two local operators in

neighbouring regions are prohibited from direct interconnection and are required to

connect to the long-distance operator) do not apply to data networks, nor to the traffic

exchange between PSTN and data networks. This means that to access VoIP-like telematic

services, users can simply purchase an IP Telephony prepaid card and dial the B-sub

international number, preceded by the network access code.

Slovak Rep. VoIP is legal, with no specific regulations for the provision of VoIP services – only a

general license is required. The regulator, the Telecommunications Office of the Slovak

Republic, originally dealt with Internet access under the ISP Dial-up Access Act. From

2001 – 2004, 2 general licenses were available:

1. General license VPT-1/2001 - to operate public telecom networks for unidirectional

transmission of radio and TV signal in circuits and for providing public telecom services of

retransmission of radio and TV by cable.

2. General license VPT-2/2001 to provide telecom services mediating access to the

Internet and data services of voice transmission over the Internet (VoIP).

However, these licenses were replaced by a general license in March 2004

112

, and the ISP

Dial-up Access Act was replaced by the Voice Plus Provision Act in mid-2004

113

. The

regulatory authority modified ISP Dial-up Access Act in order to regulate Voice Plus,

which is necessary for the legal provision of internet data transfer services (VoIP). In

February, March and April 2004 respectively, three operators (GlobalTel, Nextra &

TelSlovensko) requested an upgrade of their license from ISP Dial-up Access to Voice

Plus. TU SR also amended the rights and obligations for the license of Nextra, which had

to stop providing VoIP through the separate 019xy (code) one month after the new

regulation came into force in 2004. Slovak Telecom offers VoIP services for businesses,

while Slovak Telecom is marketing Voice over Internet (VoI) based on DSL access

114

Slovenia Geographic number ranges are not open to VoIP services in Slovenia

115

Spain VoIP providers need authorization depending on their technology and network. An

individual license is required where communication is made between two telephone

terminals. A general authorization is required where communication is between two data

terminals. A provisional authorization is needed where communication is between the two

types of terminals.

The General Telecommunication Act was published in November 2003 to transpose the

new European regulatory framework, adopting a policy of technological neutrality. The

Spanish regulator CMT conducted a consultation on VoIP during 2004. Telefonica’s VoIP

network is closely monitored by a real-time Network Management System. The regulator

CMT has specified that for 95% of calls, the delay should be <125 µs (microseconds) and

not exceed 150 µs.

Sweden VoIP is legal (also referred to as broadband telephony by the regulator, Post &

Telestyrelsen

116

). The same regulations apply to VoIP service providers as for PSTN

providers

117

. VoIP services are subject to the terms and conditions of the subscription

contract. Users should check with VoIP service providers whether emergency services are

available

118

Switzerland

– info on

VoIP

119

VoIP is legal in Switzerland. The goal of VoIP regulation is to retain interoperability of

real-time voice transmission using E.164 numbers in compliance with the

telecommunications law, for uniformity of the public telephone service

120

. Swiss

legislation does not include specific definitions relating to VoIP and the regulation of VoIP

is based on the existing telecommunication legislation

121

. All telecom service providers

independently operating a large part of the telecommunications network need a license.

VoIP is regarded as a public telephone service (for providers with real-time voice

transmission, using E.164 numbers and connected to the PSTN) and is subject to traditional

regulations including interoperability and emergency calls. The same requirements apply to

VoIP providers offering services over broadband connections or other means. However,

VoIP is not subject to universal service obligations.

The regulator, the Federal Office of

Communications (OFCOM), established an OFCOM-Industry Working Group on VoIP

that in November 2002 to examine QoS criteria, legal obligations for the provision of

public telephony and IP interconnection

122

. The VoIP Working Group has published

functional standards for VoIP

123

Turkey There are no particular regulations on the provision of VoIP services, and no specific

position. The provision of VoIP services does require a long-distance telephony service

license.

Ukraine

UK OFCOM concluded a public consultation in September 2004 that issued interim guidance,

including an interim forbearance policy (allowing VoIP providers to offer emergency

services, without other regulatory requirements for PATS)

124

. OFCOM initiated a

consultation in February 2006

125

. Providers offering VoIP services to the public have to

comply with the requirements applicable to any voice service

126

. The most recent

consultation ends the policy of interim forbearance policy and introduces a mandatory code

of practice for consumer information, to be observed by VoIP providers

127

7.4 Africa

Country VoIP Status

Algeria VoIP is legal. Algeria has been allowing VoIP (PC-to-phone) by ISPs on an

experimental basis since January 2003. Licensed PTOs are authorized to provide all

VoIP services, while competition from VSAT operators is permitted in PC to PC VoIP

services. The Algerian regulator, the Autorité Algérienne de Régulations de la Poste et

des Télécommunications (ARPT), conducted a consultation on VoIP. VoIP operators

are subject to authorisation, avoiding the difficulties of qualifying for a license. The

first VoIP operator, EEPAD, won its authorization to provide VoIP services in April

2005.

In order to qualify for an authorisation, candidate VoIP operators must prove that they

have capital of 40 million dinars (around 500,000 USD), pay 30 million dinars for the

authorisation (about 400,000 USD) and remit 10% of their annual revenue to the

regulator (in contrast to the 2% that fixed and mobile operators pay). Six applications

for VoIP services had been approved by April 2006, including EEPAD, Smart Link

Communications (SLC), WEBCOM, WebPhone Network and 2 others. As of April

2006, Balancing-Act Africa estimated that there were 100,000 VoIP clients, a number

that is growing constantly

128

Under the terms of their authorisation, VoIP operators are obliged to provide VoIP

services in at least 5 wilayas (areas) of their choice within the first year of operation, to

encourage operators to cover not only the main urban zones, but also areas of sparse

telephone coverage. 0820 and 0822 number series have been allocated to VoIP

operators.

Angola Mundo Sartel has announced that it will introduce an IP-based network.

Benin VoIP was prohibited as recently as 2004.

Botswana VoIP was prohibited in Botswana as recently as 2004.

Burkina Faso

Burundi

Cameroon VoIP was prohibited as recently as 2004.

Cape Verde

Central

African Rep.

Chad Chad’s incumbent Société des Télécommunications Intérnationales du Tchad

(SotelTchad) signed an agreement to originate and terminate international long distance

traffic with the VoIP carrier ITXC.net in Chad in 2001

129

Comoros VoIP was prohibited as recently as 2004.

Congo

Cote d’Ivoire Up until 2002, international VoIP calling was not specifically covered by the regulatory

framework, and the grey market flourished. However, the regulator closed this

loophole, and a number of equipment seizures by police followed. VoIP was prohibited

as recently as 2004, with initiatives against grey market operators.

DRC Congo VoIP can be provided by the licensed telecom provider over the public Internet only.

Djibouti

Egypt In Egypt, data and voice services are treated separately. Voice, including VoIP, is

offered by incumbents and subject to regulatory treatment by the NTRA, while data

services are offered by ISPs

130

. The licensing of VOIP in Egypt is under new

consideration: currently, a license is required for all voice services, except PC to PC.

VoIP is licensed only for VPN within the same enterprise, and cannot be used to

communicate with bodies external to the same enterprise. However, the government

and regulator uphold principles of technology-neutral regulation, and it is intended that

Egypt will allow the private sector and other operators to use VoIP for international

calls.

Telecom Egypt recently announced a project with Zhone Technologies and is installing

access concentrators in its network, using a Nortel CS2K Softswitch along with

Zhone’s Broadband Loop Carrier MALC. TE considers that this will allow TE to

provide its customers with voice services including both POTS and VoIP Services

131

Eq. Guinea

Eritrea VoIP was prohibited as recently as 2004.

Ethiopia VoIP was prohibited as recently as 2004, with some initiatives noted against grey

market operators.

Gabon VoIP was prohibited as recently as 2004.

Gambia

Ghana Ghana has yet to legalise VoIP services. VoIP was not covered explicitly in the

regulatory framework and the grey market flourished, with Ghana Telecom estimating

that the parallel market amounted to approximately US$15-25 million in 2003

(depending on estimated rate and volumes applied). Ghana Telecom took steps against

ISPs to suppress VoIP, restricting ISPs so they could only download traffic in early

2003. However, it recognized that this was not a very efficient approach, and in due

course, service resumed. The Director General of the National Communications

Authority, the regulator, and the Minister of Communications have reportedly both

publicly stated their readiness to license VoIP operators

132

Guinea VoIP was prohibited as recently as 2004.

Guinea-

Bissau

ISPs can lease international data gateways.

Kenya VoIP is legal and operators are allowed to carry VoIP. Prior to its legalization, there

was a large and growing grey market in Kenya. The incumbent itself tried to negotiate

agreements with ISPs and cyber-cafés – unsuccessfully, as the ISPs felt that it was not

Telkom Kenya’s role to legalise VoIP through the back door and that the regulator

should set the terms. Following one offer to ISPs that was rejected, Telkom Kenya

prioritized web, email and FTP traffic, and downgraded multimedia and VPN traffic.

Telkom Kenya used ‘packet sniffers’ to detect voice traffic being carried over the

Internet and closed one set of ports. This resulted in large numbers of websites

becoming unavailable and chaos for Internet users and MNCs. Eventually, the regulator

CCK wrote to Telkom Kenya asking it to remove the filtering and traffic management

measures.

The Kenyan regulator, the Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK), has now

issued guidelines legalizing various categories of VoIP, following public consultation.

The main challenges identified by the regulator are regulatory intercept,

interconnection, VoIP cost models, consumer protection and the impact on existing

operators

133

. As a result, most operators are carrying VoIP traffic, including telecentres

connected to licensed operators. Telkom Kenya has been investing in VoIP since

2004

134

, and is about to offer a VoIP-based international service.

Lesotho ISPs can lease domestic data gateways.

Liberia VoIP was prohibited as recently as 2004.

Libya ADSL is in the process of being introduced over Libya Telecom and Technology’s

ATM network in early 2006

135

. This means that in practice, VoIP is still very much a

future prospective, rather than current reality.

Madagascar

Malawi ISPs can lease international data gateways.

Mali VoIP is in practice legal and on offer - it has been endorsed by the incumbent operator,

Sotelma, but is not explicitly addressed in the regulatory framework. Sotelma aims to

exploit new ICTs and Value-Added Services, including ADSL, BLR and VoIP

136

. It has

concluded agreements with four local enterprises which designate these firms as

specialized retailers of VoIP telephony, applying to Sotelma to obtain their bandwidth

at pre-negotiated rates

137

. The agreements in effect make the four companies retail VoIP

sellers, obtaining their bandwidth from Sotelma at an agreed rate. However, there was

no clear selection process for these four companies, and local companies that were

excluded have complained.

Mauritania

Mauritius VoIP is legal in Mauritius. Operators that wish to provide VoIP services to the public

need a license from the ICT Authority under the ICT Act 2001. Two types of license

are available: 1) International Long Distance (ILD) license (where calls can be

terminated on a PSTN/PLMN telephone) and 2) Internet Telephony Service (where

calls cannot be terminated on a PSTN/PLMN telephone in Mauritius).

The VoIP licensing and regulatory framework is currently under review by government

as part of the National ICT Strategic Plan (NICTSP)

138

. The NICTSP will be completed

in November 2006 to chart the way for the next five years for the development of the

ICT Sector.

Morocco VoIP is legal. A license is required for the provision of any VoIP service. Only the

licensed PTO can provide VoIP services. The National Telecom Regulatory Agency

(ANRT) carried out a public consultation in November 2005 to discuss its vision on the

definition of certain markets, operators’ market power and obligations

139

. VoIP is not

included in the list of Value-Added Services

140

Mozambique VoIP was prohibited as recently as 2004.

Namibia VoIP was prohibited as recently as 2004. However, Telecom Namibia has announced

that it will introduce an IP-based network.

Niger

Nigeria VoIP is legal, with a license required to provide VoIP services

141

. All telecom operators

(including Nitel) carry international traffic over IP

142

. Nitel offers VoIP services for

international calling. Providers wishing to offer international VoIP calling have to

connect to the backbone of Nitel or the SNO, Globacom. Mobile operators also all have

IP gateways (e.g. MTN operates IP gateways in Lagos and Abuja). As a result, prices

have fallen significantly and the grey market has been radically undercut. Most small-

scale operators (e.g. cyber-cafes or ISPs) buy from international minutes aggregators

and sell on. However, telephony prices have now fallen to the point where there is little

or no margin left for these small operators to make a living.

The Nigerian Communications Commission announced its intention to move towards a

unified licensing regime in February 2005

143

, and published a Consultation Document

on 30 January 2006. The Unified Service License covers: Fixed Telephony (wired or

wireless); Digital Mobile Services; International Gateway Services; National Long

Distance Services; and Regional Long Distance Services. Unified Licensees are

allowed to provide ISP, VAS and Payphone services

144

. Digital Mobile licensees are

allowed to provide fixed and data services. International Gateways are allowed for own

use and third party use. FWA and PNL licensees (Fixed Telephony and LEO) can also

provide mobile services (subject to frequency and geographical limitations).

Rwanda

Sao Tome&P

Senegal Senegal liberalised its telecom sector one year ago, but has not yet defined any specific

regulation of VoIP, according to the monopoly incumbent, Sonatel. According to

Balancing Act Africa, Sonatel initiated what was probably the first VoIP wholesale

arrangement in Africa

145

. Sonatel discovered it was losing traffic to grey market

operators. Knowing who most of them were, Sonatel offered them continued trading at

agreed rates. This has resulted in strong market growth – Sonatel claimed that about

25% of its international traffic was VoIP in 2004

146

. However, it did not actually stop

the growth in the grey market – new operators stepped in to offer voice services at even

lower prices. There are many Internet users using Internet telephony over "Skype"

147

Individuals can use "Skype" for their personal communications, but businesses and

firms cannot. The Senegalese incumbent Sonatel has started to offer ‘triple play’

services with voice, Internet access and television.

Seychelles VoIP was prohibited as recently as 2004.

Sierra Leone

Somalia

South Africa Prior to 1 February 2005, all value-added network service (VANS) providers were

prohibited by legislation from carrying voice. This restriction was objected to by

Telkom, the incumbent, during its exclusivity period. As of 1 February 2005, any

holder of a value-added network service or enhanced service license is allowed to carry

voice on their networks. VANS are still required to obtain facilities from any licensed

telecom operator, including mobile operators, but cannot self-provide such facilities.

ISPs and VANS operators have begun to offer VoIP services on a retail basis and have

initiated marketing campaigns. VANS providers can now apply for numbering

resources, spectrum and interconnection with any operator. There is no regulation of

rates or tariffs for VoIP services, but the regulator is considering QoS issues and access

to emergency services. By 2004, Telkom South Africa had built a regional VoIP

gateway that it was offering across the continent, and has attracted a significant number

of African countries to use it.

The regulator also sees VoIP as part of the solution to under-serviced areas. Under-

serviced area licenses were introduced by a 2001 amendment to the

Telecommunications Act. Licensees in these areas are mandated to provide any

telecommunication services, including VoIP, fixed, mobile and public telephone

services in the licensing area. By 2004, four such licenses had been granted, but

providers had not yet started operations, so it was too early to say whether VoIP

services would form part of their offerings

148

Sudan

Swaziland VoIP was prohibited as recently as 2004.

Tanzania The Tanzania Communication Regulatory Authority (TCRA) has issued new licenses to

four national service providers (Clear line Communications Tanzania Ltd, Hotspot

Business Solutions Ltd, Wavetek Communication Tanzania Ltd & Benson Informatics

Limited). The new type of license permits licensees to provide a range of electronic

communication services to end-users, including payphone services, Internet, video

conference, voice, data, VoIP, multi-media services and calling cards.

Togo VoIP is legal in Togo, which established the first VoIP calling centre in Africa, to serve

many North American clients using VoIP

149

. ISPs can lease international data gateways.

Tunisia VoIP is permitted for business use by companies and firms, for which an authorisation

is needed from the Tunisian Ministry of Communication Technologies. Tunisie

Telecom does not allow VoIP for residential customers. The Ministry is revising the

regulatory framework in order to promote the development of VoIP, in the context of a

Strategic Plan for Telecommunications (with funding from the World Bank). On 19

April 2004, the Ministry issued a Decree No.2004-979 on the conditions and

procedures for the allocation of licenses for the installation and exploitation of a public

network for data transfer

150

, part of which addressed the framework for VoIP.

Uganda Licensed telecom providers are permitted to provide IP telephony on the basis that it is

a voice service (for which, to date, incumbent operators have held exclusive licenses).

ISPs can lease international data gateways. Up until 2004, no Ugandan ISP had openly

admitted using Internet telephony and the Ugandan Communications Commission

(UCC) had not taken an active stance against VoIP services and IP telephony. In late

2006, however, the Ugandan regulator UCC granted a telecoms services license to the

local operator TalkTelecom to become a VoIP services provider and provide services to

both residential and corporate customers, which Balancing Act Africa calls “the first

legal opening for a VoIP service provider in the country that does not operate its own

network”

151

. UCC is working with ITU on a project to extend Multi-Purpose

Community Telecentres to remote and rural areas testing the use of packet-based

wireless IP technology. UCC is testing the use of VoIP as a precursor to possible

regulatory reform, leading to more cost-effective telephone services. UTL has

announced that it will introduce an IP-based network.

Zambia Zambia’s license framework is service-specific and technology-neutral. Licenses are

awarded for the provision of specific services (for example, Mobile Cellular service,

public payphone services, basic voice and internet services among others). The

regulator views VoIP as a technology, rather than a service, so it is therefore not

licensable as a service. VoIP cannot be exploited as a service in isolation by itself,

because there is no specific provision for VoIP in Zambia’s regulatory framework. To

the extent that a licensee is authorised to provide any particular service or operate a

private network, they can use VoIP as their technology of choice in exploiting the

commercial opportunities permitted by their license. In practice, an international

gateway license is necessary to fully exploit VoIP, and despite recent moves to extend

these to mobile operators, there is currently only one holder of an international gateway

license: the incumbent Zamtel. The framework is currently under review, with the aim

of developing a unified licensing framework, as well as reducing barriers to entry.

Zimbabwe

NOTES

_____________

Press Release, 15 March 2005, available from: http://www.barbados.gov.bb/site_search.asp?id=20053182364.txt.

Address by the Minister of Finance to Parliament, January 2006, available from the Barbados Government Information Service, at:

http://www.barbados.gov.bb/site_search.asp?id=20061163295.txt

Press Release, 23 December 2005, available from: http://www.barbados.gov.bb/site_search.asp?id=200512223248.txt.

Press Release, 27 June 2006, at: http://www.barbados.gov.bb/site_search.asp?id=20066273953.txt.

“Up to 86% Savings on International Calls”, Press Release, 26 July 2006, available from:

http://www.btl.net/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1153952070&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&

http://www.btl.net/New-International-Rates/

Public Consultation, “Regulation of VoIP Services”, July 2004, available from SUBTEL’s website at:

http://www.subtel.cl/servlet/page?_pageid=58&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30

Public Consultation, “Removal of obstacles for Telecommunications Development in the Short-Term”, 2006, available

from: http://www.subtel.cl/servlet/page?_pageid=58&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30

April 2006, available at:

http://www.mincomunicaciones.gov.co/mincom/src/user_docs/Archivos/Sectorial/PoliticaDocValorAgregado.pdf

Page 10, “Colombia’s Telecommunications Report 2005/2006”, available from

http://www.crt.gov.co/Documentos/BibliotecaVirtual/ColombiasTelecommunicationReport2005.pdf

http://www.conatel.gov.ec/espanol/baselegal/baselegal.htm.

Business News Americas, “GlobalNet signs Thomson for VoIP backup”, 2 October 2006.

Analysys report for the OECD, page 21, “Roadmaps for Success in Telecom Liberalisation”, 27 March 2003, available from:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/52/2506107.pdf

IP-Enabled Services, WC Docket No. 04-36, Notice of Proposed Rule-Making, 19 FCC Rcd 4863 (2004).

Page 19, ‘Examination of Policy and Regulation relating to Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services’, Dept. of

Communications, Information Technology & the Arts, Australian Government,

http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/34194/VOIP_Report_November_2005.pdf

Page 39, ‘VoIP: developments in the market’, OECD Working Paper, Working Party on Telecommunication and Information

Services Policies, available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/24/35955832.pdf

http://www.dcita.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/34194/VOIP_Report_November_2005.pdf.

http://www.acma.gov.au/ACMAINTER.786552:STANDARD::pc=PC_6002#VoIP.

“Regulatory and Licensing Guidelines For Invitation of Applications for Issuing VoIP Licenses for VoIP services in Bangladesh”,

available from Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission’s website at: http://www.btrc.org.bd/voip_license.pdf

Page 11, “Licensing and Regulatory Framework: Operational Framework” available from:

http://www.aiti.gov.bn/l_licensing/2_Operational%20Framework%20for%20AiTi%20(final).pdf

Chinatechnews, “Koncept Announces New China VoIP Deals”, 18 November 2005, online at

http://www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=3201

Chinatechnews, “MII: No Plans Soon to Lift Ban over VoIP”, 22 July 2005, online at

www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=2813

; Chinatechnews, “China Netcom Plans to Crackdown

on Illegal Phone Kiosks”, 20 June 2005, online at http://www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=2716

According to the Senior Vice-President of Verso Technologies, as reported by ChinaTechNews, at:

http://www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=3155

Article by Mr. Au, “Responding to Comments on IP phone Regulation”, 3 July 2005, available from:

http://www.ofta.gov.hk/en/dg_article/au_articles/article.html

“Know More About IP Telephony Service”, OFTA at: http://www.ofta.gov.hk/en/publications/leaflets.html.

Article by Mr. Au, “The Regulation of IP Telephony (2)”, 15 May 2005, available from:

http://www.ofta.gov.hk/en/dg_article/au_articles/article.html

Chinatechnews, “Hong Kong Broadband Network launches second generation of broadband phone service”, 4 October 2005, at:

http://www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=3037

Press Release, “TRAI provides its recommendations to the Govt. on the Introduction of

Internet Telephony”, 20 February 2002, http://www.trai.gov.in/PressReleases_content.asp?id=280

Regulation, “Regulation on Quality of Service for VoIP-based International Long Distance Service 2002”, 15 November 2002,

available at: http://www.trai.gov.in/trai/upload/Regulations/29/Regulation%20on%20ILD-QOS.pdf

Press Release, “TRAI Amends Regulation on Quality of Service for VoIP International Long Distance Service in the Interests of

Consumers of Remote Areas”, 27 January 2004, available at:

http://www.trai.gov.in/trai/upload/PressReleases/200/Press%20Release%2027%20Jan%2004.pdf

Press Release, 30 November 2004, at http://www.moc.gov.il/new/english/index.html.

“Policy Paper: Licensing of Voice Services Provided Over Broadband Access (VoB)”, available from the Ministry of

Communications website at: http://www.moc.gov.il/new/documents/pol_22.6.05.pdf

“Policy Paper: Licensing of Voice Services Provided Over Broadband Access (VoB)”, available from the Ministry of

Communications website at: http://www.moc.gov.il/new/documents/pol_22.6.05.pdf

Page 3, Final VoIP Statement, available from the Jordanian TRC at:

http://www.trc.gov.jo/Static_English/New%20Stuff/Final%20VoIP%20Statement%20Final.doc

Formal Statement Regarding VoIP, Page 7, Final VoIP Statement, available from the Jordanian TRC at:

http://www.trc.gov.jo/Static_English/New%20Stuff/Final%20VoIP%20Statement%20Final.doc

Formal Statement Regarding VoIP, Page 7, Final VoIP Statement, available from the Jordanian TRC at:

http://www.trc.gov.jo/Static_English/New%20Stuff/Final%20VoIP%20Statement%20Final.doc

Page 4, “Notice requesting Comments on the Implementation of Voice Communication Services Delivered Using the Internet

Protocol”, 9 May 2005, available from the Jordanian Telecommunications Regulatory Commission at:

http://www.trc.gov.jo/Static_English/doc/TRC%20IP%20voice%20consult%20Final.pdf

“A milestone year for Jordan’s broadband market: New infrastructure-based operators to enter in 2006”, Press Release, 26

March 2006, Arab Advisors Group, at: http://www.arabadvisors.com/Pressers/presser-280306.htm

“Notice requesting Comments on the Implementation of Voice Communication Services Delivered Using the Internet Protocol”, 9

May 2005, available from the Jordanian Telecommunications Regulatory Commission at:

http://www.trc.gov.jo/Static_English/doc/TRC%20IP%20voice%20consult%20Final.pdf

Law on Communications of the Rep. of Kazakhstan, from the regulator AIC's website: www.aic.gov.kz

“AIC News for 2006” “Планы АИС на 2006 год”, available at:

http://www.kursiv.kz/index.php?uin=1135144930&chapter=1141258463&act=archive_date&day=2&month=3&year=2006

Press Release, 24 February 2006, Kazakh Telecom, http://www.telecom.kz/index_eng.php?content=news/press.

Guidelines for Interconnection with VoIP, available from: http://www.mic.go.kr/index.jsp.

“2006 Middle Eastern - Convergence, Broadband and Internet Market”, Global Information, Inc. quoted at:

http://www.gii.co.jp/english/pa42317-internet-mkt.html.

http://corp.terra.net.lb/Dial-Up/DSL.asp.

“Guideline on the Provisioning of VoIP Service”, available from the Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission’s

website at http://www.cmc.gov.my/mcmc/facts_figures/codes_gl/guidelines/voip/glvoip.asp

“Guideline on the Provisioning of VoIP Service”, available from the Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission’s

website at http://www.cmc.gov.my/mcmc/facts_figures/codes_gl/guidelines/voip/glvoip2.asp

As reported in the GSR Discussion Paper on VoIP, available from http://www.itu.int/ITU-

D/treg/Events/Seminars/2005/GSR05/Documents/GSR%20Discussion%20Paper%20VoIP.pdf.

“Guideline on the Provisioning of VoIP Service”, available from the Malaysia Communications and Multimedia Commission’s

website at http://www.cmc.gov.my/mcmc/facts_figures/codes_gl/guidelines/voip/glvoip2.asp

Asia-Pacific Telecommunications Organisation, Workshop on ENUM & IDN 25-26 August 2003, Bangkok,

Thailand: http://www.aptsec.org/meetings/2003/workshop/inf/Country%20report%20_Nepal.doc

Conference on VoIP, September 2004, available on the Nepal Telecommunication Authority, available at:

http://www.nta.gov.np/voip_presentations.html

Presentation by UTL, September 2004, available at:

http://www.nta.gov.np/files/Presentation%20on%20IP%20Telecphony%20UTL.PPT#263,9,IP Telephony Licensing

Article 21 of the Telecommunications Act issued under Royal Decree 30/2002, as quoted by the Sultanate of Oman’s

Telecommunication Regulatory Authority on their website at: http://www.tra.gov.om/test1/index.htm

Sultanate of Oman’s TRA Announcement on IP Telephony and VoIP, at: http://www.tra.gov.om/test1/index.htm.

As reported in the GSR Discussion Paper on VoIP, available from http://www.itu.int/ITU-

D/treg/Events/Seminars/2005/GSR05/Documents/GSR%20Discussion%20Paper%20VoIP.pdf.

“IP Telephony”, Press Release, 22 December 2004, Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, available from:

http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=434&scid=97&Itemid=1&bold=VoIP

Sub-clause 9.21 of EIS license reads: the licensee shall be responsible to make sure that no transmission of voice takes place on

the data network through his licensed Electronic Information Services, as quoted at:

http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=668&scid=150&Itemid=1&bold=VoIP

“VoIP Regulation in Pakistan: A general perspective”, Press Release, 15 November 2005, Pakistan Telecommunications

Authority, available from:

http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=668&scid=150&Itemid=1&bold=VoIP

“Comprehensive Strategy Will be Developed Against Grey Telephony”, Press Release, 16 June 2006, Pakistan

Telecommunications Authority, available from:

http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=760&catid=92&Itemid=301

“PTA Decides to regulate bandwidth rates”, Press Release, 5 April 2006, PTA, available from:

http://www.pta.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=723&catid=92&Itemid=301

Broadband Policy, 22 December 2004, Ministry of Information Technology of the Government of Pakistan, available from:

http://www.pakistan.gov.pk/divisions/itandtelecom-division/media/BroadbandPolicy22122004.pdf

http://www.eu-esis.org/esis2reg/PAreg6.htm.

Telikom PNG website at: http://www.telikompng.com.pg/AboutUs.aspx

Press Release, 2 January 2006, available from www.citc.gov.sa.

“New Licenses for Fixed and Mobile Services”, Press Release, 11 March 2006, CITC, at:

http://www.citc.gov.sa/citcportal/NewsDetails/tabid/116/cmspid/{2B30377A-648B-4814-93D5-91AC5C00953E}/Default.aspx

“The Regulatory Policies Related to Fixed and Mobile Services Licensing in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”, CITC Public

Consultation Document, at: http://www.citc.gov.sa/NR/rdonlyres/4DD56B2A-FC25-43F1-A234-

28A863210C5E/0/PublicConsultationDocumentOnTheProposedPoliciesRelatedToFixedAndMobileServicesLicensing.pdf

http://www.ida.gov.sg/idaweb/pnr/infopage.jsp?infopagecategory=consultpapers:pnr&infopageid=I232.

www.ida.gov.sg/idaweb/pnr/infopage.jsp?infopagecategory=consultpapers:pnr&versionid=3&infopageid=I3048.

“Explanatory Memorandum on the Policy Framework for IP Telephony and Electronic Numbering in Singapore”, at:

http://www.ida.gov.sg/idaweb/doc/download/I3048/EXPLANATORY_MEMORANDUM-VOIP-130605.pdf

“Guidelines on Licensing and Regulatory Framework for IP Telephony Services in Singapore”, available from IDA at:

http://www.ida.gov.sg/idaweb/doc/download/I3048/LicensingGuidelinesIPTel-130605.pdf

Syrian Ministry of Communications and Technology, available at:

http://www.moct.gov.sy/print.php?c2lkPTk1NGVuZGVuZGVuZGVuZGVuZA

“Administrative Regulations on Type II Telecommunications Business”, 15 November 2005, from the Directorate General of

Telecommunications at: http://www.dgt.gov.tw/english/Regulations/dgt42/dgt42-Type2-3609.htm

http://www.dgt.gov.tw/english/Data-statistics/Type2_iphone_eng.htm.

http://www.tra.ae/NationalTelecomPolicyofUAE.pdf

TRA’s ICT Report 2005, available at: http://www.tra.ae/ICTReport2005.pdf

http://www.etisalat.ae/index.jsp?lang=en&type=channel&currentid=a709e15c0b56a010VgnVCM1000000a0a0a0a____&parenti

d=fa58800d1f52a010VgnVCM1000000a0a0a0a____

http://www.etisalat.ae/index.jsp?lang=en&type=channel&currentid=a709e15c0b56a010VgnVCM1000000a0a0a0a____&parenti

d=fa58800d1f52a010VgnVCM1000000a0a0a0a____

Etisalat Press Release, 18 July 2006, available from

http://www.etisalat.ae/index.jsp?lang=en&type=content&currentid=10c8e15c0b56a010VgnVCM1000000a0a0a0a____&contenti

d=706c8db1bc08c010VgnVCM1000000c24a8c0RCRD&parentid=fa58800d1f52a010VgnVCM1000000a0a0a0a____

Decision on issuing the charge rates for international telephone calls provided by the Vietnam Post and

Telecommunications Corporation, 29 July 2005, available from: http://www.mpt.gov.vn/lawfiles/2655548.doc

Decision 48/2003/QD-BBCVT dated March 20, 2003 of the Minister of Posts and Telematics (MPT) promulgating

the table of international telephone using the Internet protocol (IP), available from:

http://www.mpt.gov.vn/lawfiles/VB2420446902.doc.

http://www.telekom.hr/Default.aspx?art=92&sec=66.

http://www.telekom.hr/Default.aspx?art=101&sec=27.

ERG Common Statement for VoIP Regulatory Approaches, 2005, available from

http://erg.eu.int/doc/publications/erg0512_voip_common_statement.pdf

Press Release, Czech Telecommunications Office, available from:

http://www.ctu.cz/main.php?pageid=2&page_content_id=1426

Website of the Czech Association of Telecom Service Providers, see www.apvts.cz

ERG Common Statement for VoIP Regulatory Approaches, 2005, available from

http://erg.eu.int/doc/publications/erg0512_voip_common_statement.pdf

The Electronic Communications Act, available from the Estonian National Communications Board (ENCB, Sideamet) website at:

http://sa.riik.ee/atp/failid/Electronic_Communications_Act.htm

Consultation document on treatment of VoIP under the EU regulatory framework, 14 June 2004, available from:

http://europa.eu.int/information_society/policy/ecomm/doc/info_centre/commiss_serv_doc/406_14_voip_consult_paper_v2_1.pd

Detailed considerations relating to the regulatory requirements for VoIP are detailed at:

http://www.ficora.fi/suomi/document/Ohje_VoIP-palvelujen_s%E4%E4ntelyst%E4__englanti_.pdf

The Observatory of the French regulator ARCEP, as quoted by http://www.silicon.fr/articles/11521/VoIP-15-million-d-

utilisateurs-en-France.html.

http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/enid/390ba698bf400caab0204a0053901758,d0d2d85f7472636964092d0936333139/

Regulierung_Telekommunikation/Voice_over_IP_am.html

Telecom.paper, 23 April 2004.

See ITU’s Internet case study of Hungary, 2000, p.31, available from: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/cs/hungary/hungary.html.

ERG Common Statement for VoIP Regulatory Approaches, 2005, available from

http://erg.eu.int/doc/publications/erg0512_voip_common_statement.pdf

“Sale of State Shares in Iceland Telecom”, Report of the Executive Committee on Privatisation, April 2005, available from:

http://www.forsaetisraduneyti.is/media/Einkavaeding/SIMI_MASTER_EN_12-4.PDF

“Numbering for VoIP Services”, Consultation Paper, 4 June 2004, available from:

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0472.pdf

“VoIP Services in Ireland”, ComReg document 04/103, 14 October 2004, available from:

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg04103.pdf

ComReg document 05/23, “Directions to Enable Opening of Access to VoIP Services Using 076 Number Range”, 5 March 2005,

available from: http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0523.pdf

100

Page 6, “VoIP Services in Ireland”, ComReg document 04/103, 14 October 2004, available from:

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg04103.pdf

101

“Guidelines for VoIP service providers on the treatment of consumers”, ComReg document 05/50, 14 October 2004, available

from: http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0550.pdf

102

“Review of the VoIP Framework in Ireland”, ComReg Consultation Paper document 06/13, 3 March 2006, available from:

http://www.comreg.ie/_fileupload/publications/ComReg0613.pdf

103

The three main types of VoIP-enabled services are currently available on the Italian market are:

1) PATS VoIP services that are equivalent to the traditional PSTN service e.g., non-nomadic services. (Geographic

numbers should only be available for these).

2) Nomadic PATS VoIP services and PATS VoIP-enabled services that have characteristics that are different from the

traditional PSTN service. (A new category of numbers should be created for these).

3) VoIP-enabled services accessible to the public that do not require resources from the national numbering plan (but may use

numbering/addressing resources that are different from E.164 numbers). These require general authorisation under Italian law as

electronic communications services (ECS).

104

"Disposizioni regolamentari per la fornitura di servizi VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) e integrazione del piano

nazionale di numerazione" (Regulatory Provisions for the supply of VoIP services and integration of the National

Numbering Plan), available from: http://www.agcom.it/provv/d_11_06_CIR/d_11_06_CIR.htm

105

ERG Common Statement for VoIP Regulatory Approaches, 2005, available from

http://erg.eu.int/doc/publications/erg0512_voip_common_statement.pdf

106

ERG Common Statement for VoIP Regulatory Approaches, 2005, available from

http://erg.eu.int/doc/publications/erg0512_voip_common_statement.pdf

107

Interview of the Head of the Telecommunications Agency of Montenegro with the Montenegrin magazine, Ekonomist, at

http://www.agentel.cg.yu/english/clanci/230603.htm

108

http://www.uke.gov.pl/urtip/index.jsp?layout=1&page=text&place=Text01&news_id=1071&news_cat_id=142.

109

ERG Common Statement for VoIP Regulatory Approaches, 2005, available from

http://erg.eu.int/doc/publications/erg0512_voip_common_statement.pdf

110

Notification should be made under the provisions of the ANRC President’s Decision no.1333/2003 on the general

authorisation regime for the provision of electronic communications networks and services. More information about the

ANRC’s notification procedure can be found at: http://www.anrc.ro/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=130

111

“The Directive on the Telematic service”, Ministry of Information Technologies and Communications of the Russian Federation,

available from: http://www.minsvyaz.ru/site.shtml?id=3075

112

“General license No. 1/2004 to provide electronic communication networks and electronic communication services abolishable

and substitute general license No. 1/2005”, General Authorisations, 26 March 2004, available from TU SR website at:

http://www.teleoff.gov.sk/en/G.authorisations/networks.html

113

“Slovak Telecommunications Office (TU SR) decides to change the requirements for the provision of voice services over VoIP”,

Press Release, 5 August 2004, available from TU SR website at: http://www.teleoff.gov.sk/sk/Press/2004/isp-voice.html

114

Presentation “Broadband and VoI(P)”, Marek Sarnak, Istanbul, November 2005, available from: http://web/ITU-

D/treg/Events/Seminars/2005/Turkey/documents/slovak_BB&IP_Istanbul.pdf

115

ERG Common Statement for VoIP Regulatory Approaches, 2005, available from

http://erg.eu.int/doc/publications/erg0512_voip_common_statement.pdf

116

Swedish telecom regulator, Post & Telestyrelsen, at http://www.pts.se/Sidor/sida.asp?SectionId=2112.

117

Page 43, ‘VoIP: developments in the market’, OECD Working Paper, Working Party on Telecommunication and Information

Services Policies, available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/56/24/35955832.pdf

118

Swedish telecom regulator, Post & Telestyrelsen, at http://www.pts.se/Sidor/sida.asp?SectionId=2133.

119

For the Swiss regulator’s page on VoIP, please see:

http://www.bakom.admin.ch/dienstleistungen/faq/00732/01357/index.html?lang=en

120

Page 5, VoIP Functional Standards, report of the OFCOM-Industry VoIP Working Group, available at:

http://www.bakom.admin.ch/themen/telekom/00461/00895/00915/index.html?lang=en

121

http://www.bakom.admin.ch/dienstleistungen/faq/00732/01357/01359/index.html?lang=en.

122

http://www.bakom.admin.ch/themen/telekom/00461/00895/00915/index.html?lang=en. See the mandate of the OFCOM-

Industry VoIP Working Group, available at:

http://www.bakom.admin.ch/themen/telekom/00461/00895/00915/index.html?lang=en&download=M3wBUQCu/8ulmKDu36W

enojQ1NTTjaXZnqWfVp3Uhmfhnapmmc7Zi6rZnqCkkIN0gXyDbKbXrZ2lhtTN34al3p6YrY7P1oah162apo3X1cjYh2+hoJVn6

w==

123

Page 5, VoIP Functional Standards, report of the OFCOM-Industry VoIP Working Group, available at:

http://www.bakom.admin.ch/themen/telekom/00461/00895/00915/index.html?lang=en

124

“New Voice Services: A consultation and interim guidance”, 6 September 2004, www.ofcom.org.uk/.

125

Consultation on the Regulation of VoIP Services available from:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/voipregulation/voipregulation.pdf

126

Para 3.17, page 17, Regulation of VoIP Services, available from:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/voipregulation/voipregulation.pdf

127

Consultation on the Regulation of VoIP Services, Summary of the Consultation available from:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/voipregulation/voip_pec/pec.pdf

128

“Algeria Opens its Telecommunications Market to Telephony over IP (VoIP), but the price of entry is high”, Balancing Act

Africa, French Edition, No. 32, April 2006, available from: http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/french_032.html

129

“An Overview of VoIP Regulation in Africa: Policy Responses and Proposals”, Balancing Act Africa, June 2004, Tracy Cohen &

Russell Southwood, available from http://www.balancingact-africa.com/

130

Presentation by Alaa Fahmy, Executive President of the National Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Egypt, to the

Global Symposium of Regulators 2005, presented at Hammamet in November 2005, as reported in http://www.itu.int/ITU-

D/treg/Events/Seminars/2005/GSR05/Documents/chairmansreport.pdf.

131

ITP, as reported in Balancing-Act Africa, Issue No. 322, September 2006.

132

As reported in “An Overview of VoIP Regulation in Africa: Policy Responses and Proposals”, Balancing Act Africa, June 2004,

Tracy Cohen & Russell Southwood, available from http://www.balancingact-africa.com/

133

Presentation by Eng. John Waweru, Director General and CEO, Communications Commission of Kenya, to the Global

Symposium of Regulators 2005, presented at Hammamet in November 2005, as reported in http://www.itu.int/ITU-

D/treg/Events/Seminars/2005/GSR05/Documents/chairmansreport.pdf.

134

“An Overview of VoIP Regulation in Africa: Policy Responses and Proposals”, Balancing Act Africa, June 2004, Tracy Cohen &

Russell Southwood, available from http://www.balancingact-africa.com/

135

http://www.lttnet.com/english/coming.php and http://www.lttnet.com/english/sr_libyadsl.php.

136

SOTELMA website, http://www.sotelma.ml/perspectivesprojets.htm.

137

“The legalization of VoIP will happen first in West Africa”, Balancing Act Africa, French Edition, No. 8, July 2004, available

from: http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/french_july04.html#head

138

As reported in the L’Express journal of Mauritius, April 2006, available from:

http://www.icta.mu/icta/mediaoffice/press2006/apr06/xp02apr.pdf

139

Page 16, ANRT regulators’ newsletter, available at: http://www.anrt.ma/fr/admin/download/upload/file_fr578.pdf.

140

ANRT Decision No. 08/06, 28 July 2006, “Fixing the Modalities of Declaration for the Commercial Exploitation of Value-

Added Services”, available at: http://www.anrt.ma/fr/admin/download/upload/file_fr844.pdf

141

http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/french_july04.html#head.

142

As reported by Balancing-Act Africa, Issue 321.

143

Nigerian Communications Commission’s website, available at: http://www.ncc.gov.ng/Licensing/.

144

Nigerian Communications Commission’s website, available at: http://www.ncc.gov.ng/Licensing/.

145

“An Overview of VoIP Regulation in Africa: Policy Responses and Proposals”, Balancing Act Africa, June 2004, Tracy Cohen &

Russell Southwood, available from http://www.balancingact-africa.com/

146

“An Overview of VoIP Regulation in Africa: Policy Responses and Proposals”, Balancing Act Africa, June 2004, Tracy Cohen

& Russell Southwood, available from http://www.balancingact-africa.com/

147

“Debate: Is it necessary to regulate VoIP?”, Balancing Act Africa, French Edition, No. 21, August 2005, available from:

http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/french_august05.html

148

“An Overview of VoIP Regulation in Africa: Policy Responses and Proposals”, Balancing Act Africa, June 2004, Tracy Cohen &

Russell Southwood available from http://www.balancingact-africa.com/

149

“Togo: First VoIP Call Centre in Africa”, Balancing Act Africa, Issue No.47, available from: http://www.balancingact-

africa.com/news/back/balancing-act47.html.

150

http://www.cnudst.rnrt.tn/wwwisis/jort.03/form.htm , link available from the Tunisian Ministry of Communication Technologies

website at http://www.infocom.tn/index.php?id=135#106

151

“Uganda licenses first VoIP service provider”, Balancing Act Africa, Issue No.327, available from: http://www.balancingact-

africa.com/.