Principios y Objetivos de la Ordenación Territorial

This Chapter is devoted to our final conclusions (in sub-section 6.1) and recommenda-tions (in sub-secrecommenda-tions 6.2).

6.1 Conclusions

Our study evaluates the impact of non-uniform regulatory obligations in the Member States on VoIP diffusion in the European Union, and explores the costs to the internal market associated with this development. Our analysis highlights differences in the regulation of VoIP throughout the EU Member States, and identifies resultant costs and barriers to entry and to further development.

Our empirical research substantiates that there are still substantial differences regard-ing VoIP regulation in Europe. That is perhaps not surprisregard-ing – these services are still quite new. Nonetheless, we view these differences as being problematic, and the Rec-ommendations that we present in the next sub-section of the report reflect our belief that the time is now ripe to deal with them.

Differences in the implementation and application of the European Directives at Mem-ber State level are in fact cost drivers in terms of expenses associated with the adoption of different processes on the Member State level. It is beyond the scope of this report to quantify exact numbers for the costs associated with inconsistent regulation of VoIP in the EU; however, our research provided clues on costs resulting from differences in the application of the regulatory framework regarding VoIP on the Member State level.

The challenge that came up most consistently in our interviews were differences regard-ing the allocation of telephone numbers. Numbers seem to represent an important sig-nalling mechanism and consequently, the type of number an operator is enabled to as-sign to his customers represents an important part of the operator’s brand. Conse-quently, VoI operators are reluctant to offer VoIP services in Member States where they do not have access to geographic number ranges, i.e. where there is the risk that de-mand for non-geographic numbers is not enough to cover expenses associated with a market entry. The lack of geographic numbers is thus a barrier to market entry.

Several interviewees complained of unbounded delays in obtaining numbers. These delays appear to be thwarting the procompetitive intent of the Authorisation Directive.

Further costs are associated with access to emergency services, especially in conjunc-tion with nomadic VoI. Different Member States have different regimes for routing emergency calls. There are countries where the originating network provider has to im-plement its own routing tables ensuring that emergency calls are forwarded to the cor-rect PSAP, i.e. the PSAP corresponding to the customer’s location. This is challenging for VoIP operators. First, there may be different national numbers for different kinds of emergency calls, each potentially with its own allocation of PSAPs.¹²² Second, the rout-ing tables have to be updated regularly. Third, the efforts are complicated if VoIP pro-viders plan to enter the market in several Member States at the same time, due to the high specificity of the emergency call issue on the Member State level. As a separate matter, once the correct PSAP has been determined, it is still necessary to provide the caller’s location, which in the case of nomadic VoI will not necessarily be reliably known.

Finally, all the many regulatory differences among the Member States hamper the de-velopment of learning curve effects and economies of scale, and instead cause transac-tion costs.

Lawful intercept was not an explicit focus of our study, but our interviews suggest that procedural inconsistencies in this area also lead to needless cost and to entry barriers.

This seems to us to be an area that needs further study by an appropriately chartered body, possibly by ENISA.

The effect of inconsistent regulation of VoIP is straightforward: There are many VoIP providers who choose not to enter specific Member State markets. From a public policy point of view, market entry should be welcomed, and lack of market entry lamented.

From an economic point of view, competitive market structures are best ensured by a large number of market participants with their well-known benefits to the public: the fur-thering of innovation and the increase in competition.

Market entry seems necessary from a broader public policy point of view as well. De-spite the goal of a European single market, the Digital Divide between those with effec-tive access to digital and information technology, and those without access to it, has increased over the last years. VoIP availability is one aspect of that Divide. On the one hand, VoIP is an important driver for broadband demand; on the other hand, VoIP could potentially serve as a driver for new applications as well. In this respect, additional po-tential benefits could be unavailable to those on the wrong side of the Digital Divide in some Member States. A geographically uneven development due to regulatory incon-sistencies should be avoided in any case.

122 In the course of our study, some have suggested that these national numbers have outlived their usefulness. We note that their use is a matter of national competence.

A wide diffusion of VoIP throughout the EU could contribute positively to the Lisbon Strategy as well¹²³.The acceleration of the broadband roll-out as well as the provision of new content are both strongly associated with a wider diffusion of VoIP, which should not be hampered by inconsistent regulation.

The lack of a common interpretation and implementation of the European Framework on the level of the Member States is especially a problem for VoIP-based new entrants with a pan-European focus who find themselves confronted with many country-specific idiosyncracies, many of which exist only for historical reasons. As a result, the Euro-pean regulatory system as a whole is less comprehensible than it should be to these firms, and thus more of a barrier to these VoIP-based would-be competitive entrants.

6.2 Recommendations

An appropriate and consistent regulatory environment for VoIP would tend to reduce costs and promote efficiency, and thus benefit all operators who aim to provide their services throughout the Union. It would tend to result in greater choice, and in services with better price/performance, thus benefiting EU consumers. As a result, a harmonised regulatory environment would tend to enhance European competitiveness in compari-son to other areas of the world.

The Commission looked at these issues in 2004, and the ERG in 2005.¹²⁴ The time was not yet ripe to implement a comprehensive, robust, but minimally intrusive regula-tory approach to VoIP. The services were too new, the technology too unsettled, the market too immature. The Commission and the ERG resolved some policy issues, but intentionally left other areas open in the hope that market players might come up with solutions.

That was then; this is now. In 2008, it is appropriate to move forward to greater Euro-pean regulatory harmonisation of VoIP.

We strongly emphasize the importance of a coherent numbering policy and harmonized rules governing access to emergency calls to remove an obstacle to the establishment of trans-national or pan-European business models in VoIP.

Based on our research, we think that the recommendations of ERG (2007) are direc-tionally appropriate, and we support the Commission’s suggestion to change the prob-lematic PATS definition and to remove its linkage to requirements to provide emergency calls and right to number portability.

123 See the Kok Report and the i2010 initiative. The latter includes an explicit broadband objective, and the notion of a Single European Information Space; see EU-Commission (2005a).

124 See EU-Commission (2004) and ERG(2005).

More specifically, we recommend the following concrete measures:

• Access to numbers: In order to achieve the procompetitive goals of the Au-thorisation Directive, bureaucratic hurdles to obtaining numbers need to be re-duced if not eliminated. The duration for a response to a request for numbers should not exceed the levels specified in Articles 4 and 5 of the Authorisation Di-rective, and effective recourse must be available to the ECS provider.¹²⁵

• Geographic versus non-geographic numbers: Numbering plans should be technologically neutral. Geographical numbers for traditional telephony services and geographical numbers for VoIP services (including nomadic services) should share the same number range. In light of the substantial and long-standing inconsistencies in this area, and the significant impact that these in-consistencies already have on VoIP service providers, the Commission should consider reinforcing these aspects of ERG (2007) with suitable technical imple-menting measures using its existing authority under Articles 10(4), 19(2) and 22(3) of the Framework Directive.

• Emergency services: The Commission should require Member States to en-sure that any providers of a service available to the public for originating national calls through a number or numbers in a national telephone numbering plan pro-vide access to emergency services.¹²⁶ Such providers should also be required to make caller location information available to authorities handling emergen-cies, to the extent technically feasible. Reasonable transition periods should be allowed. Such providers should be obliged to clearly inform subscribers about any limitations in the access to emergency services they offer, as compared to that offered by the traditional telephony service. To the extent that location de-termination depends on the subscriber’s own actions, it is crucial that the sub-scriber be educated and informed as to the obligations that he or she himself must undertake to keep this location information current.

The Commission (with the ongoing support of the European Regulators’ Group (ERG) and the Expert Group on Emergency Access (EGEA)) should continue to monitor developments as regards technical standards and actual deployment in regard to VoIP access to emergency services. In particular, at such time as a deployment of enhanced Public Safety Access Points (PSAPs) is ripe (especially a migration of the PSAPs to IP), some level of European coordination will be necessary and appropriate.

125 The Authorisation Directive permits a service provider to proceed as if authorized in the event that national authorities fail to promptly respond to a Notification. Since the service provider cannot do the same for numbers, an alternative mechanism is needed.

126 The phrasing intentionally follows that of the Commission’s proposed amendments to the Universal Service Directive, which are generally appropriate in our view; however, we see no need to impose the obligation on services that are used solely for international calls.

Scant attention has been paid to date to nomadic VoIP use from a Member State other than the one for which the service was intended, either with or with-out the permission of the VoIP service provider. Today, access to emergency services will not work in such an environment; however, in a future world operat-ing under ECRIT standards, access to emergency services could in principle be supported. We view this as an area for future study.

• Interconnection and call termination: This is a large and complex topic in its own right. Our assessment and our detailed recommendations appear in Marcus et al. (2008), another report for the European Commission.

• Lawful intercept: Our interviews suggest problems in the area of lawful inter-cept (at a procedural level, not necessarily in terms of technical standards). Law-ful intercept was not an explicit part of our remit. We think that further study is warranted under the auspices of some organisation with an appropriate charter, possibly ENISA.

Bibliography

Analysis (2004): IP Voice and Associated Convergent Services, Final Report for the European Comission, Brussels, Luxemburg.

Arcep (2007): Code des postes et des communications electroniques, 30/05/2007, Paris, availa-ble at: http://www.arcep.fr/fileadmin/reprise/textes/lois/cpce-decrets.pdf

Basalisco, B., Cave, J., Cave, M., Davies, A., Henten, A., Richards, P., Steele, R., Tarrant, A., Vonk, E., White, N. and B. Williamson (2007): The Economic Benefits from Providing Businesses with Competitive Electronic Communications Services, study sponsored by BT plc, June ; available at:

http://www.btplc.com/Thegroup/Regulatoryinformation/Consultativeresponses/BTdiscussionp apers/Electronic/index.htm

Bundesnetzagentur (2005): Eckpunkte der regulatorischen Behandlung von Voice over IP (VoIP), Bonn.

CMT (2005): Consulta publica sobre la provision de servicios de voz mediante tecnologias IP (VoIP), Madrid.

EGEA (2007): Expert Group On Emergency Access (EGEA), Operational Needs for Access to Emergency Services, EGEA 07-02, December.

ERG (2007): Common Position on VoIP (Draft) of the ERG – High Level Policy Task Force on VoIP, ERG (07) 56 Rev1, Brussels.

ERG (2006): Report on “VoIP and Consumer Issues”, ERG (06) 39, Brussels.

ERG (2005): ERG Common Statement for VoIP Regulatory Approaches, ERG (05)12, Brussels.

EU-Commission (2007): Commission Staff Working Document: Impact Assessment, SEC(2007) 1472, Brussels.

EU-Commission (2005a): i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and employment, COM(2005) 229 final, Brussels, June 1.

EU-Commission (2005b): The European Commission’s Approach to Voice over IP: Frequently Asked Question, MEMO/05/46, Brussels.

EU-Commission (2004): The treatment of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) under the EU Regulatory Framework, Commission Staff Working Document, Brussels.

Finland’s EU Presidency (2006): Demand as a driver of innovation – Towards a more effective European innovation policy; available at:

http://www.eu2006.fi/news_and_documents/other_documents/vko26/en_GB/115150782 2505/

Marcus, J. Scott, Elixmann, D. (authors) Carter, Kenneth R. (contributing author), with Bradner, Scott O.; Hackbarth, Klaus; Portilla, Antonio; Rey, Patrick; and Vogelsang, Ingo (2008):

The Future of IP Interconnection: Technical, Economic, and Public Policy Aspects, re-port submitted to the European Commission, January 29.

Marcus, J. Scott (2004): Evolving Core Capabilities of the Internet, Journal on Telecommunica-tions and High Technology Law, 2004, available at:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=921903.

OECD (2006): VoIP: Developments in the Market, DSTI/ICCP/TISP(2004)3/Final, Brussels.

Ofcom (2007a): Regulation of VoIP Services: Access to the Emergency Services

Statement and publication of a statutory notification under section 48(1) of the Communications Act 2003 modifying General Condition 4, London, 5 December.

Ofcom (2007b): Statement and publication of a statutory notification under section 48(1) of the Communications Act 2003 modifying General Condition 4, London.

Ofcom (2006): Regulation of VoIP Services- Statement and further consultation, London.

RTR (2008): RTR-Diskussionsdokument zur Thematik „Flexibilisierung der Nutzung geografi-scher Rufnummern in Österreich, Version 1.04, 28.01.2008, Vienna, available at:

http://www.rtr.at/de/tk/InputdokGeoKEMV/Diskussion_geoRN.pdf

RTR (2007): Ergebnis der Überprüfung der Märkte der Telekommunikationsmärkteverordnung 2003, RVON 2/05-31, Vienna.

RTR (2005): Guidelines for VoIP Service Providers: Consultation Document, April 2005 Wien, available at:

http://www.rtr.at/en/komp/KonsultationVoIP2005/VoIP_Guidelines_2005_Cons.pdf Schwarz-Schilling, Cara (2004): Voice over IP Anhörung, speech held at the DVPT

Manage-ment-Forum on May 27^th 2004, Frankfurt.

Stratix (2003): Voice-over-packet technology: Options for OPTA, Report for OPTA, numbers and registration unit, Schiphol.